| • White paper
• Community pharmacy
• Domain names
• Minor ailment scheme
• Electronic prescriptions
• Hospital pharmacy
• Procurement
• Euthanasia
• Council election
• Health and safety
• The Society (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Community pharmacy
Reply from
David Pruce, director of practice and quality improvement, Royal
Pharmaceutical Society
|
Excessive workload
From Mr M. Koziol, MRPharmS
Many letters have recently expressed alarm about excessive workload
and insufficient staffing levels, particularly in community pharmacies.
Andrew Jukes (PJ, 15 March 2008, p305) alluded to the fact that the Pharmacists’ Defence
Association has done work on this subject. The PDA has produced a policy
document and has proposed a relatively simple quality management system as
a practical
solution. However, for this practical solution to work, it would require the
regulatory support of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
Despite numerous meetings with the PDA over more than two years, the Society’s
directorate of practice and quality improvement has failed to act, claiming
there is insufficient evidence that staffing levels and excessive workloads
are a problem in community pharmacy.
I hope that the director of practice and quality improvement has been reading
his Journal these past few weeks for, if he has, then perhaps he can be persuaded
to change his mind.
Any pharmacist or employer interested in the details of the PDA’s proposal
on how to create a staffing level policy for a pharmacy can find this at www.the-pda.org
(PDF 710K)
Mark Koziol
Chairman
Pharmacists’ Defence Association
| |
DAVID PRUCE, director of practice and quality improvement,
Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
We were aware of the concerns
of members
regarding excessive
workload and poor staffing levels when the code of ethics and standards was
redrafted. The professional standards for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians
in positions of authority therefore deals specifically with this.
These standards say that pharmacists and pharmacy technicians in positions
of authority must ensure that “appropriate policies for the number and required
experience levels of staff for the business or department(s) they manage are
in place and are made known to relevant staff”.
The document goes on to say that these people must ensure that, “working
conditions and practices are lawful and resources, facilities and equipment enable
staff to provide services to professionally accepted standards”.
It also states: “Staff are able and encouraged to take appropriate rest
breaks. When agreeing working hours and rest breaks with employees you must take
into account legislative requirements, individual requirements for breaks and
the needs of patients.”
We make it clear that a failure to adhere to the standards could result in
a complaint being made against an individual.
A disciplinary case against a superintendent, a pharmacy owner or a manager
requires evidence that can be presented to the Investigating and Disciplinary
Committees.
We have asked the PDA to share any specific examples that it has with us that
could result in a disciplinary case.
The PDA has produced a policy statement suggesting that each pharmacy should
have a satisfactory staffing level policy agreed in an open and transparent
manner. We endorse this and, indeed, the standards above require that such
policies are
in place.
We have some concerns about the tool advocated by the PDA in its policy document.
While it attempts to measure workload, it does not provide a means of relating
this information to appropriate staffing levels. We would need to be sure that
the tool is valid and usable before we could recommend it to the profession.
If readers have developed a validated tool that can be used to assess workload
and appropriate staffing levels, please share it with us. We are keen to work
with any professional colleagues on ways in which the requirements of the code
of ethics can be fulfilled.
Please contact david.pruce@rpsgb.org |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal