| • Retention fees (12)
• CPD (2)
• The profession (2)
• Drug misuse
• Community pharmacy
Letters to the Editor
|
The profession
Do not forget to lobby other local politicians
From Mr A. G. B. Jones, MRPharmS
Tom Moberly’s article
on lobbying politicians (PJ, 22 September,
p321) gave many excellent pointers. However, from my perspective, it
had a clear omission: the need to lobby local as well as national politicians.
Unless they are in government members of Parliament are restricted to
influencing rather than making decisions. However local politicians may
well be in a position to make decisions important to pharmacy. Three
areas relevant to pharmacy that will see the influence of local politicians
increase are “health scrutiny”, “local strategic partnerships” and
the development of “seamless care” between primary care trusts
and the community care departments of local authorities.
Health scrutiny has become a function of local government since the demise
of the community health councils. The role is to monitor local health
services and to make recommendations as to how services can be improved.
Local strategic partnerships have been set up to deliver services across
the statutory, business and voluntary sectors. They are led by the local
authority. Funding and targets come from central government through a
mechanism called the local area agreement. Many of the targets are health-related
and relevant to pharmacy.
The development of seamless care will lead to more pooled budgets between
PCTs and councils and more joint working. As pressure mounts to keep
patients at home rather than go into care there is potential for pharmacy
to develop and market services in this arena.
Pharmacist intent on lobbying politicians should add their local councillor(s),
the chairman of the health scrutiny panel, the chairman of the local
strategic partnership (often the leader of the local authority) and the
portfolio holder for community care to their lists.
Graham Jones
Leader
West Berkshire Council
Locums' and employees' views should be heard
From Mrs L. K. Gilpin, MRPharmS
Since the new community pharmacy contract was put in place in 2005, it
has appeared that many pharmacists are less happy in their work and more
stressed than before. This impression was based on anecdotal evidence,
together with comments from the postings on pharmacy forums and individual
letters in The Journal. Now, however, I believe that evidence is coming
together to support this.
A letter from a director
of the Pharmacists’ Defence Association drew attention to a pharmacist facing disciplinary proceedings for failing
to undertake enough medicines use reviews (PJ, 8 September, p258). Another,
from the Listening
Friends Scheme, highlighted that many calls to them
were from pharmacists experiencing highly stressful work cultures (PJ,
15 September, p292).
At the British Pharmaceutical Conference, Alison Blenkinsopp said that
she had found that the new contract had contributed to a substantially
increased workload for pharmacists and that 30 per cent of pharmacists
reported decreased job satisfaction related to their roles since the introduction
of the new contract, to remuneration and to respect received from GPs (PJ,
15 September, p280).
Bearing in mind that employee and locum pharmacists had no vote over the
terms of this new contract, I now believe that it has been a source of
great stress to many pharmacists and is contributing to the disaffection
which many now feel towards their profession.
The high number of pharmacists who responded to the online petition about
retention fees is not, I contend, just a message about money but is in
some cases a message of an underlying unhappiness with the practice of
pharmacy as a whole.
Pharmacists feeling unhappy, disenfranchised and remote from the decision-making
apparatus of pharmacy does not bode well for pharmacy in the long term.
Every opportunity to include pharmacists from the grass roots in decision-making
bodies should be taken.
A letter, however, regarding the inclusion of such
pharmacists in the Professional Regulation and Leadership Oversight Group
that I wrote to Dawn Primarolo and copied to Keith Ridge, has so far
not had the benefit of a reply, which I fear reflects official attitudes.
At every step towards the future, be it the White Paper consultation
or plans for the long term, great effort should be made to contact and
include
the views of employee and locum pharmacists. Lindsey Gilpin
English Pharmacy Board
Royal Pharmaceutical Society |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal