The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7188 p325-328
9 March 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

Letters are available in a single PDF* file (70K)

  Spiritual healing
  Baddy chemists
  Community pharmacy
  BPC
  Animals in research
  CHD
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

Community pharmacy (2 letters)

Ownership is in keeping with professional role

From Mr A. J. Smith, FRPharmS

A major effect of the new contract has been the reduction in the number of independent pharmacies, a fall over the past 10 years of 27.5 per cent. Over the same period, the number of prescriptions dispensed has increased by 36.1 per cent. At 31 March 2001, 50.4 per cent of all pharmacies were independent and the balance consisted of multiples and health centre pharmacies. It is forecast that during 2002 independent pharmacies will be in the minority.

It would appear, because of the preponderance of multiple pharmacies among the businesses which dispense large volumes of prescriptions, that the multiples dispense the majority of National Health Service prescriptions. For example, there are 346 pharmacies dispensing more than 10,000 prescriptions per month and, of these, 222 are owned by multiples.

Another major aspect of the new contract in addition to the halving of the percentage gross profit and the growth in multiple pharmacies, is the rapid growth in numbers of pharmacists who are employed as locums. There are, no doubt, many reasons why pharmacists prefer to be employed as a locum rather than in full time employment in one situation, but I would like to mention a few. For example, because of the restriction on the ability to obtain a new NHS dispensing contract, many young pharmacists find it difficult to open a new pharmacy and even more difficult to afford to purchase an existing pharmacy because of the escalating prices for goodwill. The high salaries paid to locum pharmacists, plus the flexibility of working hours, and the changing environment of working in different establishments, are the other factors which have probably led to the growth in locum employment.

I ask whether it is in patients' best interests to have these constant changes in personnel and whether the system of permanent ownership and management is not more in keeping with the extension of the professional role.

Alan Smith
Waterperry, Oxfordshire

Back to the dark ages

From Mrs A. Morant, MRPharmS

A recruitment advertisement under the heading "part-time" in the PJ of 16 February is for a pharmacist to work three days per week, 9am to 11pm, job-sharing with another pharmacist. This, presumably, means that another pharmacist works the remaining three days.

These hours, even with reasonable meal and rest breaks, still equate to a 12-hour working day. At a time when society is demanding higher standards from all the professions, how can this be condoned? One is tired enough at the end of an eight-hour day so how can it be expected that someone will be able to exercise the same high degree of judgement and competence after 12 hours. Furthermore, in the event of sickness, would the unfortunate other pharmacist be expected to provide cover by working four, five or even six days in a week?

Even though the public would like pharmacies to be open around the clock, this is unrealistic, as we all know. Surely, as the profession looks to the future, and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has been planning for Pharmacy in a New Age, there is a need to encourage employers at least to adopt 20th century practices even if they cannot be persuaded to bring themselves right up to date.

Annette Morant
Edgware, Middlesex

Previous Topic (Baddy chemists)
Next Topic (BPC)
Send your letter to The Editor