| • Pseudoephedrine
• Pharmacy degree
• Prescription charges
• William Allen article
• Packaging
Letters to the Editor
|
Pharmacy degree
We should not allow the “dumbing down” of pharmacy education
From Miss S. Vize
Through his Broad
spectrum article (PJ, 17 March, p306), Stuart Anderson
certainly will have stimulated debate surrounding the future of pharmacy
education. No doubt its content has stirred emotive reactions similar to
those that must have been felt by some when women were first allowed to
register as pharmacists, or when the concept of accredited checking technicians
was first proposed. Fortunately, these examples of change (at the time
controversial proposals) have proved to be worthwhile with hindsight. The
author rightly states that radical thinking is now needed, but this is
because he has proposed such radical changes, to which, I imagine, much
of the profession (and student body) would rightly be opposed. One reason
for opposition is the views of patients and the public.
The public expect easy access to their pharmacists. Do they not expect
this professional to be a highly educated and trusted “scientist
on the high street” who has developed, over five years, the necessary
knowledge, skills and attitudes that underpin this highly responsible role?
They may not wish to be redirected to their “prescriptionist”,
a former technician who has been on a fast-track course, when requesting
to see the pharmacist. Where will community pharmacists be if not in community
pharmacies? It seems Dr Anderson envisages “tier three” pharmacists
employed in the hospital sector and “tier two” prescriptionists
running community pharmacies supported by “tier one” pharmacy
technicians in (as far as I can make out) an as yet undefined role.
Another reason for opposing these ideas is our standard of education. The
pharmacy degree was extended to four years, in part, to provide for the
extended services that were planned 10 years ago. A four-year degree does
not constitute master’s level, as some PJ correspondence has stated.
Many courses are now offered as four-year master’s programmes, eg,
physics. It is the nature of the final year — critical evaluation
and thinking — which constitutes a master’s level and there
are criteria for this level which must be met for the MPharm to be awarded.
The author implies that a master’s degree is wasted on a community
pharmacist. This is not only demoralising for hardworking students (and
pharmacists), but it devalues the efforts of our lecturers.
Dr Anderson states that many current technicians would perform well in
the pharmacist’s shoes and I agree, but this transition must be made
properly. As a fourth year MPharm student who before university qualified
as a technician, I would say to anyone finding themselves in a similar
position, with the desire for career progression and academic satisfaction,
to take “A”-level chemistry and apply for entry to the MPharm.
It cannot be desirable to create a tier of semi-qualified “prescriptionists”,
lost somewhere between the roles of technician and pharmacist. Equally
we should not allow the “dumbing-down” of pharmacy education.
I believe the current training for pharmacists needs to be improved. One
option may be to complete a training year in practice in the fourth year,
then return to university to complete the MPharm, since this would provide
students with a wider appreciation of the world of pharmacy in advance
of qualification and, importantly, put the course into context, as is the
case for technicians who decide subsequently to become pharmacists.
Sarah Vize
Portsmouth |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal