The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 277 No 7432 p768-769
23/30 December 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 80K, Acrobat Reader

· Pfizer products (2)
· Fitness to practise
· The profession
· Rural practise
· Retention fees (2)
· The Society (2)

Letters to the Editor

The profession

We do not need to invent new roles

From Mrs D. Drury, MRPharmS

Most pharmacists have noted that there has been a lot of focus on regulation at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Hopefully, the formation of the national boards should mean a transition to professional leadership. We need to examine workload, and be in a position to help pharmacists to meet the requirements, in which ever field of work they practise. The question needs to be asked: how many support staff can be supervised per pharmacist? There must be sensible discussion about lunch breaks and breaks during long working days. Let us go back to part-time or low income fees, for pharmacists that can only work a few hours a week. That would allow us home visits, appointments with primary care trusts, or surgeries, or whatever the new health demands are. We would also be retaining highly educated staff.

We need funding for pharmacists to undertake continuing professional development and further courses. It is absurd that we have to work longer hours than many other professionals and then to do continuing professional development in our limited leisure time. We need well trained medicines counter assistants, dispensers and technicians; they also are having to spend many hours of private time in study. This is just not sustainable and no wonder we are all fed up with the current state of affairs.

We do not need to invent new roles. The public love us and we are one of the only instant services in health care on the high street. We want pharmacists in pharmacies and have to say no to the daft idea of remote supervision or delegating to non-pharmacists. The public expect better of us and quite rightly. They should have this access to the highly qualified graduates in pharmacy that we are turning out. We need some overlap of pharmacists in our community pharmacies and must put pressure where needed to achieve this. Our services are both timely and cost efficient which comes about from being private contractors to the NHS. Other areas of the NHS have had managers of this, that and the other and it has only led to overspending and wastage. They need to take the lead from us.

Fees for pharmacists need to be pegged and we cannot be expected to subsidise other registrants. Support staff were to be regulated only and pay a regulatory fee whereas pharmacists are members of the Society and are both regulated and professionally represented. Pharmacists are now paying three times the technician fee for ultimately the same service.

Dorothy Drury
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
English National Board Election Candidate

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Fitness to practise)
Next Topic (Rural practice)