| · Birdsgrove House (2)
· Pharmacy practice (2)
· Adverse events
· Child protection
· Emergency supplies
· Reciprocity
· Chloramphenicol
· Retention fees
Letters to the Editor
|
Pharmacy practice
Work break guideline exists, but difficult to enforce
From Mr C. O. Agomo, MRPharmS
The recently published guideline “Dealing with, and overcoming,
problems in contracts of employment” PDF (720K) by the Pharmacists’ Defence
Association (PDA), is not only informative, but reveals some of the difficulties
employee pharmacists are sometimes made to endure without much challenge.
It addresses the work breaks issue raised by Paul
Summerfield (PJ, 13
August, p194), Andrew
Jukes and Celia Kellett (PJ, 20 August, p225).
Most errors can be linked to dangerously busy pharmacies, inadequate
staffing levels and long hours of work without breaks. However, there
is a problem with enforcing this guideline, as it is difficult for employee
pharmacists to tell employers what to add or delete in an employment
contract.
If the PDA is truly hoping to make real difference in the lives of UK
employee pharmacists, then this evidence-based guideline will need to
be presented to policy makers in pharmacy to bring about a more balanced
outcome.
Chijioke Agomo
London
Pharmacists should not be bullied
From Mr S. A. Wheatley, MRPharmS
Your correspondents Andrew
Jukes and Celia Kellett (PJ, 20 August, p225)
are to be reassured that there can be no obligation on or compelling
reason for any pharmacist to work long hours unwillingly without adequate
breaks.
The recent issue of “Medicines, Ethics and Practice” [Section
A.1 (d), p86] states that pharmacists must ensure that they do not work
in conditions that do not enable them to comply with their key responsibilities.
Section A.2(e), also on p86, states that pharmacist owners, superintendent
pharmacists and pharmacist managers have a personal and professional
responsibility not to seek to impose conditions on pharmacists which
may adversely affect their ability to comply with their professional
and legal duties. The Law
and Ethics Bulletin published in the PJ (16
June 2001, p811) clarified the implication of this requirement by stating
that “requiring employee pharmacists to work extended periods without
adequate provision for rest breaks could constitute a breach of this
requirement of the Code of Ethics”.
Additionally, the consumption of food or drink in the dispensing area
is not considered to be good practice.
The “Working time regulations” also have something to say
on this matter. An adult worker is entitled to an uninterrupted break
of 20 minutes when the daily working time is more than six hours. The
break should be in working time and should not be taken either at the
start or at the end of a working day. By implication, to be uninterrupted,
the break must be taken away from the work station.
So the published guidance is unambiguous but the onus is on the individual
pharmacist not to be bullied into working without adequate breaks. However,
there is anecdotal evidence that some pharmacists are contracted to work
without lunch breaks. It must be recognised that other pharmacists prefer
to work through their lunch breaks to benefit from the extra duty payments.
The intensity of some businesses is such that many pharmacists feel obliged
not to take breaks in order to avoid potential confrontation upon their
return to duty.
Stan Wheatley
Blandford Forum,
Dorset
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal