| • Supervision
• Counterfeit medicines
• Citric acid
• White Paper (2)
• The Council
• MDSs
• Pfizer (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Supervision
Muddled definition simply unacceptable
From Mr B. D. Nathwani, MRPharmS
The reply given by Jeannette Howe to Howard
McNulty’s letter (PJ,
9 June, p676) — concerning the muddled definition in the Health Bill
of who actually is the responsible pharmacist — is unacceptable. Philip
Walton’s letter in the same issue (p673) refers to the lack of quality
pharmacy leadership at government level. Never could two letters have dovetailed
so perfectly to illustrate starkly the real reason why the profession is
still struggling to move forward some 20-plus years after Nuffield.
The central and flawed premise for the Health Bill is that it will
enable pharmacists to fulfil their wider, more clinical role. The Department
of Health fails to understand that the on-site consulting room is from
where the extra services can and should be delivered. Most community pharmacists
want to undertake wider clinical roles. So, yes, enable us to walk out
of the dispensary and into the on-site consulting room. We want to work
in professional surroundings with two pharmacists practising side by side,
and, no, we do not want to delegate some critical tasks to technicians
for which we as responsible (or duty) pharmacists are ultimately liable.
And the public wants to see and have access to the pharmacist in the shop.
The usual arguments are made about shortages of pharmacists and lack of
resources but there are many pointers that show that this needs more lateral
thought. Gidman et al (PJ, 2
June, p645) found that a minority of women
pharmacists expressed an intention to quit the profession or to stop working
because of dissatisfaction with remuneration. The report concludes (in
part): “Our findings suggest that it might not pay some women, particularly
those working in low-paid roles and who pay for child care, to work as
community pharmacists.” The relevance of this is that 41 per cent
of women pharmacists work only part time, many in low-paid roles. Now consider
that 65 per cent of new pharmacists are women, and factor in the new schools
of pharmacy, and the extra women pharmacists they will produce may end
up working part time or quitting the profession. What an abject waste of
talent and resources!
With regard to money, we have the DoH’s own figures showing that,
on average, a pharmacy makes £180,000 net NHS profit. Many make much
more and multiples boast that they can pay up to £4m in goodwill
for high volume and high stress prescription factories. The cost of carrying
this burden is £200,000 at 5 per cent — the salaries of several
extra pharmacists. Surely some of these wasted millions should be used
for better pay and working conditions (paid child care, better training
opportunities, etc) for women pharmacists who are over-represented at the
lowest level of employment.
I would urge my colleagues to respond to the current Royal Pharmaceutical
Society consultation on this issue and ensure that although pharmacists
welcome the chance to walk out of the dispensary we are not forced to carry
on the walk — out of the shop and into obscurity and unemployment.
For more information see the Society’s website
Bharat Nathwani
Pinner, Middlesex |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal