Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

Return to PJ Online Home Page

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7235 p188
8 February 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

   

PDF* 90K

Letters

  OFT report
  Locum pharmacy
  Hospital pharmacy
  Dispensing
  Heart disease
  The Profession
  The Society
  The Journal


Letters to the Editor

  * PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.

Hospital pharmacy

Hospital pharmacist pay is market-sensitive

From Mr R. G. Pate, FRPharmS, and Mr B. Jones

Although we share many of the concerns expressed by the Association of Scottish Trusts Chief Pharmacists with the Government's proposal to modernise the pay system for National Health Service staff (PJ, 18 January, p80), it is worth mentioning a couple of key points. We would therefore like to assure your readers that the points made have not been lost on the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists and in particular in respect of the emergency duty commitment allowance, and where pharmacists will ultimately sit in the new pay scales.

In discussions still ongoing in "Agenda for change", we have expressed concerns that too few pharmacists' jobs have been involved in the evaluation and profiling process and that much more work needs to be done to correct this. In addition we have highlighted that hospital pharmacist pay is market sensitive and we believe this has now been acknowledged in the application of recruitment and retention premiums in recent announcements on "Agenda for change". We are making the point that when applied to pharmacy these need to be at a high percentage if the service catastrophe predicted by the Scottish trust chief pharmacists is to be avoided.

Although "Agenda for change" is progressing with some speed, there is still much to negotiate. Indeed, the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists will also be submitting a pay claim for 2003–04 and while this will incorporate issues raised previously, the opportunity will be used to relate this to "Agenda for change" and the need to modernise grading definitions.

Clearly it is in everybody's interests to recruit and retain high quality staff to the service. If "Agenda for change" does not fully take into account the impact it can have in respect of this it will not have succeeded in its ultimate aim in ensuring the NHS can recruit the staff it needs and provide adequate reward to retain their services. It is therefore the guild's intention to consult members over this proposed deal.

In conclusion we are grateful to the Association of Scottish Trust Chief Pharmacists for highlighting the issues in such an eloquent way. However, much of "Agenda for change", including job evaluation and pay scale assimilation, has still to be concluded and clarified.

Ron Pate
Chairman

Barry Jones
Section General Secretary Staff Side
Pharmaceutical Whitley Council

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Locum pharmacy)
Next Topic (Dispensing)

Back to Top


Home | Journals | News | Notice-board | Search | Jobs  Classifieds | Site Map | Contact us

©The Pharmaceutical Journal