| · Medicines for children
· Labelling
· Morphine sulphate
· Complementary medicine
· CPD
· Co-proxamol withdrawal
· The Council
· The profession
· The Journal
· Support staff
Letters to the Editor
|
Support staff
Condescending opinion
From Mrs V. Fraser, Pharmacy Technician
Different abilities? Or no abilities? (PJ, 5 February, p145). This seems
to be the condescending opinion of Philip
Walton on whether dispensary
staff are capable of carrying out anything more than the basic skills of
primary education (heaven forbid, A-levels or higher).
I have completed three A-levels, two dispensary courses, the NVQ3 pharmacy
technician course, a biochemic medicine course and am currently embarking
on the accredited checking technicians scheme while awaiting my registration
as a technician.
As has been reported (PJ, 17 January 2004, p50), from January 2005, all
staff working in dispensaries must be studying towards an NVQ2 or above.
The idea of this is to ensure that, in accordance with clinical governance
guidelines, staff are adequately trained to cover all aspects of work alongside
a pharmacist in the dispensary. (The NVQ3 underpins this knowledge particularly.)
So why is Mr Walton so indignant that his staff will not receive certificates
if they only complete parts of the course? Would he have received his MRPharmS
title by part completion?
Singling out tasks to certain members of staff and part completion of courses
by them means not using employees to full effect and a problem if they
are absent. If Mr Walton thinks that most people who work in dispensaries
are not of an academic ability to work to A-level standard — performing
only repetitive tasks — then I dread to think what his thoughts are
on the accredited checking technician scheme.
It seems to be the general patronising assumption of Mr Walton (from his
letter) that anyone working in a dispensary who is not a pharmacist is
there because they are not intelligent enough to attend university. That
said, he should consider himself fortunate to have any staff at all, let
alone a person employed solely to fill monitored dosage systems. Most dispensaries
are hard pushed to have one or two trained staff covering all duties alongside
a pharmacist.
The National Pharmaceutical Association does not “need to understand
the myriad of tasks in a busy pharmacy” — it already does.
Hence the structure of the NVQ3 and its confidence in the abilities of
those who undertake the course.
Perhaps, now that Mr Walton’s letter has gone to print, he will not
be finding recruitment of suitable staff so “easily possible”.
And as information has recently appeared about a possible foundation degree
course for technicians, I would advise Mr Walton to beware … the gap
is closing.
Victoria Fraser
Bicester,
Oxfordshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal