Practising in the modern era
Pharmacists who work part time are revolting — or at least threatening to revolt. The correspondence columns of The Journal are still reverberating six weeks after the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council decision to do away with the part-time retention fee was announced. As a result, many part-time pharmacists — particularly those in the older age groups — seem to have decided to leave the register altogether and not take up the opportunity to join the non-practising register.
How strong is their case and should the Council view part-time practising
pharmacists (say those working two or three days a month) any differently
from those who work 30, 40, or even 50 or more hours a week?
Almost 18 months ago to the day, The Journal published the results of
a survey carried out on behalf of the Society’s CPD implementation
committee about members’ views on compulsory continuing professional
development. Nearly 8,000 members wanted their views known, and an overwhelming
majority of them (93.3 per cent) agreed that a pharmacist in a job normally
undertaken by a pharmacist should undertake mandatory CPD. Over 75 per
cent believed (PDF 55K) that the Society should restructure the register
to create “active” and “inactive” categories
(PJ, 29 March 2003, p456).
What has this to do with the current concerns of part-time pharmacists?
Undertaking CPD is primarily a protection for patients and the general
public. They need to be able to be confident that the pharmacist from
whom they seek professional advice is up to date and knows what he or
she is talking about.
Although a pharmacy career of 30 or more years counts for a great deal,
with the world of medicines and pharmacy changing as fast as it is, experience
is no longer everything. Arguably, an individual who only works three
or four days a month, or helps out at a local pharmacy in a crisis, is
more in need of intensive CPD than the pharmacist who has to put in 50
hours a week. So, in the modern era, whether a pharmacist practises part-time
or full-time — or extra full-time — may not be as relevant
as some practitioners think.
Part of the retention fee supports the Society’s CPD programme
and part is used to develop good practice and for other professional
issues; part, of course, is used to support the Society’s regulatory
and disciplinary structures. All these cost the same to maintain, no
matter how many days a pharmacist works.
It will, of course, be a great loss to the profession — and the
general public — if the part-timers decide to leave the register.
But, it will also be a personal loss to those individual pharmacists
if, after a lifetime of service, they leave because they are only prepared
to continue to practise on today’s terms.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal