Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

Return to PJ Online Home Page

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 271 No 7271 p544
18 October 2003

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

   

PDF* 90K

Letters

  Concordance
  The Profession
  Remuneration
  Consultants
  Modernisation
  Workforce census
  SOPs
  Specials
  The Society


Letters to the Editor

Consultants

Generic job functions already in existence

From Mr P. J. Maltby, MRPharmS, and Dr B. L. Ellis, MRPharmS

We note the proposals (PDF 45K) by Hebron et al (PJ, 30 August, p261) and the ensuing correspondence from Webb et al (PJ, 27 September, p404) for creating the role of a consultant clinical pharmacist from the functions described in HSC 1999/217, and fully support them.

We would like to make pharmacists aware that the UK Radiopharmacy Group has proposed a generic series of job functions for consultant radiopharmacists (or radiopharmaceutical scientists) that closely correspond to the existing consultant clinical scientist grade C post. The latter’s role has already been defined in the job evaluation profile section of “Agenda for change” published by the Department of Health, with the level of responsibility and expertise being recognised as being equal to that of a medical consultant.

The proposed consultant radiopharmacist or radiopharmaceutical scientist post has the support of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists because hospital pharmacists and hospital clinical health care scientists are being seen in the same light by the DoH for human resource planning in the future. The DoH has further recognised that radiopharmacy is a function of the health care scientist workforce in the NHS, by including it in the development of a national occupational standards exercise currently being undertaken nationwide. These standards will, in the next few months be linked to competencies, and thus ultimately ensure that the skill mix and qualifications of staff are correct for each defined job function.

We would therefore urge our fellow senior technical specialist pharmacists, especially those in “early implementer” sites to work closely with their GHP representatives and consider wording their job evaluation profiles in conjunction with their local “matching panels” to suit the term “consultant”.

It would be iniquitous for technical pharmacists not to be recognised as “consultants” in their own right when clinical pharmacists in the hospital setting and in the primary care setting (eg, Boots) already are.

Paul Maltby
Principal Radiopharmacist
Radiopharmacy Department,
Royal Liverpool University Hospital

Beverley Ellis
Department of Nuclear Medicine,
Manchester Royal Infirmary

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Remuneration)
Next Topic (Modernisation)

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

Back to Top


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

©The Pharmaceutical Journal