| · Shipman inquiry
· Broad spectrum
· Public health
· Violence in pharmacies
· Pharmacy education
· Tablet identification
· Natural therapies
· Nasal sprays
· Dispensing
· The profession
· The Council
· The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
Pharmacy education
We need to look at the end product
From Ms E. S. Wakeling, MRPharmS
Over the past year, since I started in post as a hospital teacher practitioner
at the University of Bradford, clinical teaching of our future pharmacists
has been high on my agenda, so I have been following the debate on scientific
education of pharmacists with interest.
I think that we have to look at the end product — what are we trying
to achieve by training a pharmacist? A member of the health care team,
able to contribute to patient care, patient education, the knowledge
of fellow health care professionals, and the general heath of the nation?
Or someone who works in a research and development laboratory formulating
new pharmacological molecules or drug delivery systems? I would argue
that though these latter roles are essential to the development of health
care provision, they do not require a pharmacist to fulfil them.
I would like to qualify the concerns of your other correspondents that
pharmacists should be scientists first and foremost, by specifying that,
yes, pharmacists should have a scientific approach to their work, but
we should remember that there are many aspects of science. Medicinal
chemistry, synthetic chemistry, organic chemistry, analytic sciences,
manufacturing and powder-flow properties — how many of us remember
spending large percentages of our university training learning about
these topics, and little about health care related ones? How many of
us then go on to use these disciplines in our everyday work as pharmacists
working with patients? I do not, and I do not know any other pharmacist
working in the health care sector who does. I do, however, use my knowledge
of pharmaceutics, physiology, pharmacology, microbiology, evidence-based
practice, communication skills, research skills, risk management and
clinical governance. These are all scientific disciplines, and ones which
I consider central to my role as part of the health care team.
Perhaps if pharmacists had increased clinical experience before qualification,
they would be more confident upon qualification to discuss clinical issues
with colleagues and question errors; perhaps if pharmacists’ training
had more of an emphasis on the clinical sciences (while retaining sufficient
chemistry to allow understanding of its clinical application), other
health care professionals would be more accepting of us as part of the
health care team, rather than be uncertain of what our job entails and
be reluctant to ask our advice. These are real problems facing newly
qualified pharmacists today (PJ, 5 June, p714) and we owe it
to the future of our profession to address these issues and raise our
profile in the
clinical setting.
Eleanor Wakeling
Glusburn,
West Yorkshire
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal