Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search
|
This article |
|
· Vitamin D and Cancer |
Pharmacy workforceConsequencesFrom Mr J. A. S. Buisson, MRPharmS The consequences of decisions made by the former Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society regarding practising pharmacists and retention fees are now clear to see (PJ, 14 January, p40). For the first time in many years, there has been a net reduction in the membership of the Society. Around 2,500 former members over and above the normal turnover voted with their feet (or wallets) and, no doubt reluctantly, left the Register. Karen Hassell and Martin Eden’s analysis reveals that most of those who came off the Register were older men, mostly working in community pharmacy. Although many of them were not working full-time, it is dangerous to assume that they “were not contributing significantly to the labour market”. No operation can be expected to work at full efficiency at all times. A certain amount of reserve capacity is needed to deal with unforeseen events or surges in demand. In community pharmacy this is provided by a pool of part-time locums, often former proprietors. It is their many years of experience that allow them to come into a pharmacy (possibly one they used to own) and smoothly pick up the reins. This is the very point you make in relation to medicine use reviews (PJ, 14 January, p30). Things are easier when you are used to doing them regularly. The former Council showed a considerable lack of empathy for the position of these pharmacists, and the many who have moved overseas. They, in turn, responded in kind by leaving a Society that seemed, in truth, to have left them. While the Society remains a membership organisation with both professional representation and regulatory functions, the Council must temper its thinking to encompass both halves of this integrated role. Jonathan Buisson |
|
Send your letter to The
Editor |
Previous Topic (NEL LPC) Next Topic (Overseas pharmacists) |