The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7402 p623-624
27 May 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

· Non-medical prescribing (2)
· Medicines management
· Roche Diagnostics
· Electronic prescribing (2)
· Pharmaceutical Press
· Education (3)
· Council election (4)
· Onlooker (2)

Letters to the Editor

Education

Newly qualified are ill-equipped for modern-day pharmacy

From Mr J. D. Thomas, MRPharmS

With the recent concerns on the status of the MPharm course at De Montfort University school of pharmacy (PJ, 29 April, p493) and the Department of Health information paper (PJ, 14 January, p31), suggestions that pharmacists might need particular additional qualifications or experience to become responsible pharmacists reinforces many community pharmacists’ observations of recently qualified pharmacists’ lack of knowledge and communications skills when dealing with the proprietary medicines and minor ailments.

These newly qualified pharmacists are often used by the multiples as fodder to keep their retail operations legal and are hidden away in the high-volume NHS prescription dispensaries, dealing with repeat prescriptions and nursing homes’ monitored dosage systems. Although they have had four years of academic training, and are thus fully trained, competent and conversant in the theories of drug actions, interactions, etc, they are woefully short of the knowledge that the modern-day counter assistant possesses due to the training they have undertaken.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society, through its education committee, and the schools of pharmacy are not providing the pharmacy undergraduate with the correct training courses and are sending them out ill-prepared for modern-day pharmacy.

In my opinion, newly qualified pharmacists wishing to manage or undertake locum tenens as the only pharmacist on registered premises should have to undertake and possess an appropriate qualification in minor ailments and proprietary medicines.

This will only give greater confidence for the general public on their six million daily visits (circa 1983) because at the present time the shrinking violets of newly qualified pharmacists often appear to be lacking in this knowledge.

David Thomas
Patshull, Shropshire

Assurance to past De Montfort graduates

From Dr M. Andrew

I write regarding the manipulation of students’ marks at De Montfort University, which has been the subject of several letters of adverse comment (PJ, 6 May, p533, and 20 May, p592). It is now no secret that I was vehemently opposed to this action, since extracts of my private letters of protest written to my dean and to my vice-chancellor have been published recently in The Times Higher Education Supplement. These were forcibly acquired by the newspaper under the Freedom of Information Act.

However, it is also my personal view that someone needs to assure past graduates of De Montfort University (and the profession as a whole) that this incident has not happened before and that our assessments have always been carried out in a robust, fair and rigorous manner with the aim of upholding the highest academic and professional standards.

As a former course leader for the BSc, and later the MPharm, programme and as a long-standing member of all previous examination boards (and not a member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society), I feel I am in a position to offer that assurance, which I do unequivocally and not at the behest of my institution.

I can also confirm that the Society’s reaction to the event was both swift and appropriate, and was much welcomed by those of us who were averse to changing the marks. I believe it will help to ensure that the situation does not recur.

Malcolm Andrew
Principal Lecturer and Teacher Fellow
School of Pharmacy,
De Montfort University, Leicester

Has De Montfort brought the profession into disrepute?

From Mr D. J. Livingstone, MRPharmS

Am I alone in believing that the De Montfort University school of pharmacy results “scandal” reported in The Times Higher Education Supplement should be referred to the Statutory Committee? It appears clear to me that the irregular undergraduate assessment practices have, at the least, brought the profession into disrepute and demeaned those graduates of De Montfort who gained their grades on merit.

I would have thought that if an academic pharmacist was a party to these actions — either by instigation or support, that he or she should face professional disciplinary action.

Duncan Livingstone
Lancing, West Sussex

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Pharmaceutical Press)
Next Topic (Council election)