| · Intervention recording
· Packaging
· National Health Service
· Remote supervision
· Council election
· Fitness to practise (3)
· Education
Letters to the Editor
|
Remote supervision
Not in the public’s best interests
From Mr M. S. Howard, MRPharmS
I support the comments of Sue
Maycock (PJ, 13 May, p566). Let us take
remote supervision to its logical conclusion:
2006 — One overworked pharmacist, devoid of breaks during an eight-hour
day is legally responsible for everything that takes place in the pharmacy
in which he or she works. Poor work conditions, repressive regulation
and enforced continuing professional development lead to pharmacists
leaving the profession. Reciprocal arrangements are cancelled. Retention
fee increases 30 per cent.
2008 — One overworked pharmacist, devoid of breaks during a 10-hour
day, is legally responsible for the pharmacy in which he or she works
and (due to a growing lack of pharmacists) also responsible for 10 pharmacies
down the road. Poor work conditions, repressive regulation, enforced
CPD and increased paperwork lead to pharmacists leaving the profession.
Stress-induced alcohol and drug abuse among pharmacists grows but the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society no longer offers support for these individuals;
they are promptly and publicly removed from the Register. Retention fee
increases 40 per cent.
2010 — One seriously overworked pharmacist, devoid of breaks during
a 12-hour day, is legally responsible for the pharmacy in which he or
she works and (due to a desperate lack of pharmacists) also responsible
for all pharmacies in the primary care trust. Poor work conditions, repressive
regulation, enforced CPD, increased paperwork and the risk of spurious
allegations lead to pharmacists leaving the profession. Part-time pharmacists
are promptly and publicly removed from the Register. Fewer students enter
pharmacy undergraduate training. Retention fee increases 50 per cent.
2012 — One inhumanely overworked pharmacist, devoid of breaks during
the 14-hour day, is legally responsible for the pharmacy in which he
or she works and (due to a complete lack of pharmacists) also responsible
for all pharmacies in the UK. Poor work conditions, repressive regulation,
enforced CPD, increased paperwork, the risk of spurious allegations and
nervous breakdowns have led to all other pharmacists leaving the profession.
No students enter pharmacy undergraduate training. Retention fee increases
60 per cent. The public wonders where all the experts in medicines have
gone.
Without exception, every member of the public to whom I have explained
remote supervision believes that this is not in their best interests.
The public want immediate access to these highly trained health care
professionals, whom they value even if the Society and the Government
do not. Remote supervision is clearly just a money saver and I shall
refuse to be held legally and ethically responsible for actions over
which I have no control.
Matthew Howard
Exmouth, Devon
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal