| · Pharmacy education
· Primary care
· Community pharmacy
· Technicians
· Acute diverticulitis
· Oxygen
· Dispensing errors
· Charitable donations
· Returned medicines
· BPC
· Blood-brain barrier
· CPD
· Overseas membership
· The register
· Retention fee
· The Society
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
Technicians
Technicians’ code of conduct is unacceptable
From Mr J. A. Baker, FRPharmS
The Pharmacy Technicians’ Code of Ethics (PJ, 4 September,
centre insert, PDF (150K)) is unacceptable because it fails to demonstrate
how technicians’ roles
differ from pharmacists’ or to clarify the relationship between
the technician and the pharmacist to whom he or she is responsible. I
am amazed that this document has been through a process of consultation
and is the final version. In my view, application of this code may prejudice
patient safety by eroding pharmacists’ responsibilities and allowing
technicians to undertake work for which they lack requisite knowledge
or skills.
There are a few statements in the code that refer to the relationship
between technicians and pharmacists, eg, “pharmacists have overall
responsibility for the pharmaceutical services provided to patients” and “referral
to a pharmacist ... must be made where appropriate”. However,
many statements are vague and much of the content is applicable to pharmacists.
The general impression given is that technicians work with a considerable
degree of autonomy and this is strengthened by frequent use of the word “professional” throughout
the code, a much misused word that has no generally accepted meaning
today.
There is, at the least, a 10-fold difference in the time spent on scientific
and clinical education and training for pharmacists and technicians.
This is because in the course of their work, pharmacists need to make
judgements that require in-depth knowledge and understanding of the scientific
and clinical issues concerned. In contrast, technicians work within boundaries
set by the pharmacist and although this will usually include giving information
to patients and others, eg, concerning the use of medicines, the technician
is not competent and should not be expected to give advice requiring
judgements based on in-depth scientific and clinical knowledge.
This is the theory although the reality is frequently different: some
pharmacists spend much of their time on work that technicians are competent
to do and, worryingly, technicians sometimes do work for which they lack
the requisite the knowledge or skills.
In its present form, the code seems to accept this situation. It fails
to clarify the difference between the roles of pharmacists and technicians
or the relationship between them and, because of the vague language and
lack of clarity of thinking, it is likely to encourage development of
technicians’ roles in inappropriate areas where they are not competent.
This is certainly not in the best interests of patients or the public's
perception of pharmacy.
I should add that that I am not opposed to developing technicians’ roles
and career opportunities.
John Baker
Horsham, West Sussex
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal