| · Problem-based learning
· Support staff (2)
· Co-proxamol
· Mental health
· New contract
· Repeat dispensing
· Overseas pharmacists (2)
· Registration
· Recruitment
· The profession
Letters to the Editor
|
Support staff
Assistants need a supportive pharmacist
From Mrs S. Jones
I am well aware of the position of the pharmacist in a dispensary and
that legally the pharmacist has total responsibility but I was unaware
that only the pharmacist can have a certain level of intelligence (PJ,
5 February, p145). I realise that Philip
Walton was concerned initially
about the academic level of the dispensary assistants’ course and
whether it was relevant to his staff. However he then went on to undermine
the intelligence of “most people who work in the dispensary”.
Unlike Mr Walton I think that most people who work in a dispensary are
more than capable of completing this course. Having worked on the medicines
counter for several years as a part-time assistant I moved into the dispensary
and completed the course in question. Although I found the course interesting,
I did not find it particularly challenging and completed it in eight
weeks.
Mr Walton seems to view his staff with little regard and trust, both
essential ingredients to running an efficient and effective dispensary.
He doubts their academic ability to do the course but I would suggest
that the one necessary ingredient missing for them to complete the course
successfully is a supportive pharmacist. I cannot stress enough how important
it is to have the trust, support and belief of your pharmacist and by
underestimating the ability of his staff, Mr Walton does them a great
injustice and denies his pharmacy the benefits of their knowledge.
Stephanie Jones
Dispensing Technician
York
Clarification
From Mr P. Walton, MRPharmS
I feel I must respond to Victoria
Fraser’s response to my letter
regarding the National Pharmaceutical Association dispenser’s course
(PJ, 19 February, p207).
I have no qualms about staff who are keen to learn, progressing as far
as they are able, and indeed my company does encourage staff to progress
to dispenser, dispenser checkers and even foundation degrees. My letter
pointed out that the standard of work required for the NVQ2 is the same
as that required for the NVQ3, which will make it difficult for some people
who work in dispensaries to complete (especially where they are not employed
to dispense). My observation and experience is that most people who work
in dispensaries are not dispensers but are employed as general helps to
those whose function is to dispense (be they dispensers or pharmacists).
In that case it would make sense if the NVQ2 imparted information such
as Caldicott guidelines, health and safety at work and hygiene, etc, needed
for all staff and left the specifics of dispensing for those who are to
become dispensers. In that case an NVQ2 would be of more general interest,
relevant to work and able to be done by people who do not dispense as a
job.
Currently, staff employed to clean and tidy shelves or put stock away will
need to undertake work to A-level standard if their employers use the NPA
NVQ2 course. If only the part of the course relevant to their job is completed
there will be no awarded certificate or proof of achievement.
As for the comment “different abilities or no abilities”, there
are people who enjoy repetitive work which would drive me crazy … a
different ability!
Philip Walton
Swinton, Manchester |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal