|
The issue of what people wear to work regularly makes headlines. In
June 2007, for example, a Home Office review of removals of families
from the UK recommended that immigration officers should wear softer
colours
in order to be less intimidating to children.
Then there was the debate
over whether or not a British Airways worker should be allowed to wear
a Christian cross. Even Jeremy Paxman has been at it, calling ties “an
utterly useless part of the male wardrobe” and questioning whether
it is time for Newsnight men to stop wearing them.
Clothing protects, decorates, identifies, unites and displays status.
According to Desmond Morris, author of ‘Manwatching: a field guide
to human behaviour’ (Triad Books, 1978), it is impossible to wear
clothes without transmitting social signals.
Other authors suggest that
people make judgements on credibility, likeability, education level and
trustworthiness — important attributes for pharmacists — based
on clothing and, over several decades, researchers in social psychology
and communication have built an evidence base to support such theories.
Studies
that look at the influence of apparel typically involve showing people
photographs of a model dressed in different styles and asking
them to appraise each one using adjectives, such as “knowledgeable” and “friendly” or
to score each for descriptors, such as “confidence in ability”.
Targets for these types of study have included students (judging what
teachers wear) and patients (judging doctors’ attire).
What a person wears can also affect the behaviour of others. For example,
one study showed that pedestrians are more likely to ignore a “red
man” at a crossing if they see a person dressed in high status
clothing ignoring the signal. Another found that people are more likely
to comply with a request made by someone dressed in a uniform than with
a request from someone not in uniform.
It has also been shown that levels
of political support and charitable donations are affected by what the
recipient wears. It makes sense, therefore, to assume that style of dress
might influence patient-pharmacist relationships as well as how relationships
with other health care professionals are formed, and this leads to the
question: what should pharmacists wear in order to be positively perceived?
Comments in The Journal have blamed “the
medium of the T-shirted pharmacist” (PJ, 28 October 2006, p516) and pharmacists
arriving for work in jeans (PJ, 4 November 2006, p545), among
other things, for tarnishing the professional image of pharmacy. At the
other end of the
spectrum is the white-coated pharmacist. Surgeons started wearing white
coats in the late 19th century as a new aseptic method — dirt is
clear on white — and, by the 1950s, many pharmacists were wearing
them. Advocates of the white coat claim it makes it easy for patients
to identify the health care professional and may lend an air of authority.
Although the sight of a community pharmacist in a white coat is less
common these days, for some, the coat is a symbol of the profession.
Many US schools of pharmacy, for example, hold “white coat ceremonies” in
which incoming students are presented with a white coat and take an oath. “The
ceremony and coat signify the movement into a professional programme.
… Students typically wear the coats throughout their programme,
during their early clinical experiences and in professional practice
related
laboratory sessions,” Holly Mason, associate dean of academic programmes
at the Purdue University School of Pharmacy, Indiana, says.
Anthony Smith,
principal and dean of the School of Pharmacy, University of London, told
The Journal that white coat ceremonies are something the school
is thinking about. Should professionalism, in terms of clothes, be instilled
from
university? The school’s dress code is currently under review (a
previous version included that it “takes a dim view of baseball
caps in class”) but Professor Smith says: “We would not want
to be too prescriptive while [students] are at the school, but if they
are on a work placement, they should observe professional norms — that’s
a collar and tie for boys.”
A white coat may spell professionalism
but some believe that it intimidates patients — staff on psychiatric
or paediatric wards shun the white coat for this reason — and contributes
to the anxiety of a consultation, hence the term “white coat hypertension”,
where blood pressure is elevated in clinical settings. Approachability
was a factor considered
by Superdrug in its dress code for pharmacists.
Martin Crisp, head of
pharmacy for Superdrug Stores Plc, says the company’s pharmacists
are issued with a white shirt with the Superdrug logo attached, which
is worn with black trousers or skirt. “We do allow our pharmacists
to wear their own clothes if they prefer but they should be businesslike
(ie, shirt or blouse). The whole pharmacy team is issued with the same
white shirt or blouse, which helps identify them from the other members
of the store. By wearing the same we hope that the pharmacist appears
approachable and feels part of the team.”
Sagar Patel, pharmacist
at Herbert & Herbert Chemist, Hounslow, comments: “Ideally,
I’d like to wear jeans and a smart top because people would feel
able to talk to me. Why should I wear a white coat? I don’t work
in a laboratory.”
People want a community pharmacist who looks approachable and looks part
of the community, especially in small pharmacies, says David Sprakes,
manager of bespoke design at Simon Jersey, a company that supplies uniforms
to the NHS. However, “[Pharmacists] also need that edge — that
they are professionals. So while a casual element is a good idea, to
make [clothes] too informal breaks down respect.” Mr Sprakes thinks
male community pharmacists should wear shirts. A tie is not necessary
but a polo shirt would be too casual. And they should also avoid too
many colours.
“If you saw a pharmacist in a riot of colour, would
you take him seriously? Personally, I like white — it is crisp
and clean — maybe with an accent of another colour. White can register
authority and is recognisable. That doesn’t necessarily mean a
white coat; it could mean a tunic. There is such an ingrained history
[of white in health care], you need to bring white into the equation.
You can tweak the style and modernise, for example, choosing a jacket
with a mandarin collar instead of a traditional one,” he says.
Dress codes

Knowledgeable? |
Many organisations use dress codes and uniforms to support health and
safety and to promote a professional image and, last month, the Department
of Health published an evidence-based document to guide the development
of local policies on uniforms and workwear. The Welsh Assembly says
uniform codes are at the discretion of each NHS trust.
Most trusts do not require their pharmacists to wear a uniform, but
to comply with a general dress code that applies to all staff. Common
to
many codes is the prohibition of shorts, flip-flops and jeans. Excessive
jewellery, heavy make up and strong smelling perfumes or aftershaves
are also not permitted and shoes should be “low noise” so
as not to disturb patients.
According to the Norfolk and Norwich University
Hospital (NNUH) NHS Trust dress code and uniform policy, ties should
reflect a professional image. “Homer Simpson saying ‘doh’ may
not be appropriate,” Andrew Stronach, head of communications at
the trust, comments. However, the policy also notes “in an emergency
situation, especially out of hours, medical staff may prioritise a timely
response over keeping up appearances”.
At Essex Rivers Healthcare NHS Trust, the dress code for pharmacists
is to be “presentably turned out”, says chief pharmacist
Richard Needle. If pharmacists wish, they can wear the same uniform as
technicians (tunic tops and trousers). Identification badges, therefore,
are the chief means of identification. When pharmacists go into a room
where a patient is in isolation, they wear an apron and gloves and, in
infection outbreaks, they wear “theatre blues”. Infection control

Approachable?
|
Although there is no conclusive evidence that work clothes pose a hazard
in terms of spreading infection, the rationale behind many dress code
requirements is infection control.
White coats have been branded as a possible source of infections because
they tended not to be washed frequently and, for the same reason, the
British Medical Association has objected to tie wearing. Dr Needle says
that he has not worn a white coat for over five years — although
he still has one hanging up in his office — because it is an infection
risk.
However, the disappearance of the white coat is not just about
cleanliness, but about a change in culture: “[White coats] had
an air of formality. There is a much more open and relaxed culture [now]
and it is far less hierarchical. It reflects the move to a more collaborative
approach,” he says.
At South Tees Hospital NHS Trust, the uniform policy is being reviewed,
but the most recent version stated that the dress code for pharmacists
and senior technicians is “smart clothes with white coat as necessary”.
An example of necessity is when making an extemporaneous preparation,
but this reflects older practice, says Alan Hall, chief pharmacist at
the trust.
When asked if he thought the white coat looked professional,
he answered: “I don’t now. If you’d asked me 10 years
ago, I probably would’ve said ‘yes’.” Mr Hall
stresses that on wards, pharmacists have to follow infection control
policies. This means short or rolled-up sleeves, no watches or jewellery
and no ties. Pharmacists off wards can also opt for the open collar look. “The
culture is changing. You’ve only got to look at our politicians
who choose to go open neck,” he explains.
Many trusts have evidence-based guidelines for laundering uniforms within
their policies. Those that permit uniforms to be washed at home, generally
stipulate that, for uniforms that have not been exposed to potentially
infectious micro-organisms or body fluids, a 10-minute 60C wash is sufficient
to remove most micro-organisms. Some also recommend tumble drying or
ironing, or both, to destroy any remaining bacteria. Uniforms are expected
to be washed daily and items that might not be washed daily, such as
cardigans and fleeces, are not allowed in clinical areas.
At South Tees Hospitals Trust, white coats are classed as uniform, according
to Mr Hall, and this implies that they should be laundered by the trust’s
laundry service daily. He admits that he is not aware if this is audited,
but points out that few of his staff wear them save for “one or
two of the older ones”.
Trusts expect non-uniform staff to wear clean clothes (in accordance
with the Health Act 2006 Code of Practice) but there is generally no
specification in dress codes for how and when they should be washed.
In addition, although there is an assumption that hospital staff will
wash their clothes daily, this is difficult to enforce, Dr Needle said.
Should trusts, therefore, require their pharmacists to wear a uniform? “Staff
who [are required to] wear a uniform are [those] in close physical contact
with patients on a prolonged basis. Pharmacists are not in close physical
contact with patients,” Mr Stronach says. “Our policy is
adapted on the advice of microbiologists in terms of what is risky and
what is not,” he explains.
However, the pharmacist’s role
is becoming more clinical and the chief pharmacists of both South Tees
and Essex Rivers NHS trusts told The Journal that their trusts have talked
about pharmacists (and doctors) wearing theatre blues, as in the US.
“The way that hospitals clothe their staff is probably going to be an
issue in forthcoming years in an attempt to stamp out meticillin resistant
Staphylococcus aureus, although much of this is budget driven,” Mr
Sprakes predicts. However, it may be difficult to change attitudes if
people have been used to wearing their own clothes for a long time:
“High
street [pharmacists] might expect to wear a uniform but in a hospital
environment, which is more relaxed, they may be more against it. But
there are lots of benefits to wearing a uniform. Least of all it saves
your own clothes.” Religion and belief

Trustworthy?
|
Following high profile debates, in March 2007, guidance from the Department
for Education and Skills allowed schools in England to ban students
from wearing face veils. Schools of pharmacy have considered this issue
and in its offer pack to this year’s undergraduates the School
of Pharmacy, University of London, states that it has a “no face
veil” policy. Expected
guidance on dress codes and religious
belief for the NHS in England from NHS Employers (PJ, 9 December
2006, p682) will, however, not be published.
According to former health
minister
Rosie Winterton, the U-turn came because it was recognised that each
trust comprises a work force that reflects their local communities
and national guidance would be inappropriate. Sian Thomas, deputy director
of NHS Employers, said: “Employers told us that they … will
be reviewing [their policies] in light of ongoing legislation. … We believe the main consideration for staff uniforms is health and
safety and the spread of microbiological infection.”
Employers who wish to adopt a dress code must give careful consideration
to ensuring that the proposed code does not contravene the Employment
Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. The Advisory, Conciliation
and Arbitration Service (ACAS) advises that general dress codes that
conflict with religious requirements may constitute indirect discrimination
unless they can be justified.
For example, in addition to a wedding ring,
many Hindu women wear a necklace (mangal sutra) which is placed around
their neck during the wedding ceremony. Some may find it distressing
if they are not allowed to wear it in their place of work, unless the
rule was for justifiable reasons, ACAS says.
North Somerset Primary Care Trust’s dress policy has an equality
and diversity clause which includes the sentence: “Compromises
to accommodate individual preferences based on differences covered by
legislation will be made where possible, but modifications are unlikely
to be made where there are legitimate health and safety issues, …
or in situations where communication with patients and patient care may
be adversely affected.”
A test case brought under the regulations
was that of the classroom assistant in West Yorkshire suspended for wearing
a face veil. Defences included that when she was veiled, the children
did not engage as much with the assistant, they could not pick up visual
cues and that her diction was muffled. Could this apply to pharmacists’ interactions
with patients?
Although none of his pharmacists wears a face veil, Mr
Hall believes it might: “My personal view is that I think it possibly
could be difficult in terms of patient consultations. With some of our
elderly patients there are communication barriers already and [the veil]
adds another.”
David Regan, solicitor at Mundays LLP, stresses that every case will
be judged on its facts, but says: “I believe that an employer would
struggle with this argument, as there is much less necessity for a customer
to rely on non-verbal cues and facial expressions than there is for a
child to. If the customer was deaf, then I could see this being an issue,
however then the employee could simply summon another member of staff.”
Shazia Akhtar is a locum pharmacist and practising Muslim. She does not
wear the face veil but wears a headscarf and jilbab (long dress). She
believes that the issue of the face veil has been politicised. “Professional
Muslim women, whether they wear the hijab and jilbab or the face veil,
want to contribute to society by being a part of the health care workforce.
Any legislation or policy (even at a local level) can become an obstacle
to this.”
She says that if it is believed to be necessary, a discussion
should arise between an employer and the individual concerned, but
adds that a Muslim woman who is working as a pharmacist will, like any
other
professional, be able to make the best judgement regarding her dress
and whether it affects her ability to do the job. Substance over style?
One of the few studies on the influence of clothing in pharmacy was
published by the American Pharmacists’ Association in 2005. This
looked at whether or not different levels of communication and different
dress
style affects a person’s satisfaction with a service.
A male
pharmacist was dressed in three styles, formal (shirt and tie), business
casual (khaki trousers and a polo shirt) and casual (jeans and T-shirt).
The pharmacist was then filmed giving advice in a community pharmacy.
There were two levels of advice, high performance (where the pharmacist
sat down with the patient for five minutes, gave in-depth, uninterrupted
counselling using open questions, verified the patient’s understanding
and gave empathetic responses) and adequate performance (a one-minute
interaction in which the pharmacist provided the patient with basic
information, did not actively involve the patient and was distracted
by a ringing telephone).
The six scenarios were repeated with the pharmacist
wearing a white coat. In all scenarios, the pharmacist was clean, had
short hair and was closely shaven. Almost 200 people were asked to
watch the interactions and to rate his performance for benefit, effectiveness
and helpfulness.
Analysis of the responses indicate that only the level of communication
affected how the pharmacist was perceived. The high performance interaction
resulted in higher ratings of quality and trust and made people want
to use the pharmacist and recommend him to a friend. Dress style and
whether or not the pharmacist wore a white coat made no significant difference
to these perceptions.
The researchers concluded that dress is not likely to influence a person’s
evaluation of a pharmacist when the performance of the pharmacist is
also taken into consideration. However, they say that dress is an extrinsic
cue, which is more likely to be used as a quality indicator when a consumer
does not have adequate information about intrinsic attributes (in this
case, performance). In other words, what a pharmacist wears may mar or
enhance a first impression.
Furthermore, the researchers say that if a consumer has little or no
experience with a service, does not have the time or interest to evaluate
intrinsic attributes or is in a situation where the intrinsic attributes
cannot be easily evaluated (ie, if the service is technical or complex),
extrinsic attributes, such as attire, may take on greater importance.
Although not statistically significant, the study results indicate that
wearing a white coat may lead to a more favourable response when a pharmacist
is formally dressed and to a less favourable response when the pharmacist
is casually dressed.
When choosing their work attire pharmacists might also consider the demographics
of a pharmacy. In a study published in the British Journal of General
Practice, patients were asked to judge photographs of a male and female
doctor in different clothes. Those from social classes 1 and 2 and older
patients were more likely to give high scores to the traditionally dressed
doctors (a suit and tie for the man and a skirt and blouse for the woman).
However, this study was conducted in the 1990s, when health care was
more paternalistic and patients were more likely to pay attention to
traditional symbols of authority.
It is interesting that a white coated male doctor came second to the
one in a suit and tie, but a white coated female doctor scored higher
than the one in a skirt and blouse.
Finally, what pharmacists wear could also influence how they behave and
their service delivery, although even less research has been done in
this area. Mr Sprakes agrees: “If you have an organisation that
issues a uniform, depending on their feelings for the uniform, it can
affect how staff perform.” If they are not happy with the uniform
they are not going to perform as well, although this also depends on
the individual, he adds.
Mr Crisp says: “I think the clothes a pharmacist wears is secondary
to [his or her] ability to build rapport and empathy with patients.” However,
although it may not be important compared with other factors, such as
availability, helpfulness, friendliness, knowledge and ability, style
of dress is something that can be changed more easily than personality
and if dressing in a particular style enhances pharmaceutical care, then
why not?
Future looks
“I think hospital uniforms will become simpler
in cut and style,” David
Sprakes of Simon Jersey says. Scrub suit-type garments that are
more casual and easy to wear may become more prevalent and an advantage
is that these could be cheaper to provide than sets of shirts,
trousers
and coats. In addition, the fabrics used will change with technological
advances.
Mr Sprakes already works with fabrics that use nanotechnology
to make them infection-resistant. For instance, Toray’s “see
it safe” range has silver ions built into the fabric, which
release electrons to disrupt the amino acids of microbes that land
on it. The company claims that the fabric kills 99.9 per cent of
bacteria, including MRSA, within an hour.
For community pharmacists, Mr Sprakes said he would not be surprised
if, in 20 years, the combination of shirt, trousers and white coat
makes a come back. “I think that the pharmacist needs to
be recognisable. People want reassurance.”
However, for employers
who want their staff to wear a uniform he warns that pharmacists
come in all shapes, sizes and ages and this should be considered. “A
man in his mid 20s might not want to wear pleat-front trousers,” he
says. In addition, a uniform should fit in with any corporate image
so, for a company like Boots The Chemists, a pharmacist’s
uniform is part of a jigsaw and should slot in with the uniforms
of many
other roles to give a complete look, whereas for smaller pharmacies,
the pharmacist’s look could be more focused and individual.
Changing
the uniform of staff can affect how the public perceives an organisation,
says Mr Sprakes and a particular look can help
an organisation be seen as forward thinking, quality driven,
traditional or futuristic. |
|