|
While standing in the lift in my hospital the other day I saw a poster
advertising careers in the NHS. “We don’t just need doctors
and nurses,” it trumpeted, “we need all sorts of people — carpenters,
electricians, radiographers, physiotherapists ... ” and so the
list continued. Among the professionals that did not get a mention were
pharmacists.
This is depressing. It is not as if there is a surplus of hospital pharmacists
and no need to encourage the recruitment of additional staff. It suggests
instead that the profile of hospital pharmacists is just not high enough.
Other health professionals and the outside world as a whole simply do
not know enough about what
we do.
As hospital pharmacists, we all obviously have a role in promoting our
profession as and when we can. Organisations (such as the Guild of Healthcare
Pharmacists) also have a part to play. However, much of the burden of
promoting the work done by hospital pharmacists and making sure their
voices are heard and views adequately represented must rest on the shoulders
of those formally charged with (among other things) promoting the profession
as a whole — namely the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
So where has the Society been going wrong in promoting the work done
by hospital pharmacists? I have plenty of thoughts of my own, but thought
it was worth while canvassing opinion from colleagues as to what they
felt the Society had done for them. The following are typical of the
responses I received:
· “I am not sure I know what the
Society has done for hospital pharmacists. What I would like them to
do is to raise the profile of
what we do in relation to safe and effective drug therapy. All the public
know about is doctors and nurses.
Someone needs to highlight all the good and best
practices in hospital
pharmacy.”
· “I don’t have really strong
views but I do think the Society is very biased towards community
[pharmacy]. When I have looked at the election stuff, I’ve been
disappointed to find few candidates with much, if any, hospital
experience ...
· “There should be [formal]
representation from hospital pharmacists on the Council. This has always
been
minimal and now there is just one!”
The loss of hospital representation after the recent Council elections
is a key theme coming from the responses I received. However, there also
seems to be the feeling that even if there were more hospital pharmacists
on Council, nothing much would be achieved anyway. This is not the
fault of current and past Council members such as
Helen [Howe] and Alison [Ewing] who have tried their best (and, in the
case of Alison, will no doubt continue to do so). It seems more to be
the result of a system that works against them.
For example, when the Society was formed, there was no such thing as
a hospital pharmacist. Later on, when it first assumed its regulatory
role, there were still no hospital pharmacists. When hospital pharmacists
appeared with the advent of the NHS in the 1940s no significant systems
seemed to be put in place to assist this new breed of pharmacist. (Apart,
of course, from the system to take our fees).
Not only does the Society appear to do little to promote hospital pharmacists,
it does not even seem to have much to do with regulating us and our
working environments. Depending on the type of work carried out, hospital
pharmacy departments do not necessarily need to be registered with
the Society as premises. And hospital pharmacists themselves do not
seem to cause the inspectors much work –– during the three
years up to the end of 2003, only eight of the 203 cases (four per
cent) the statutory committee dealt with concerned hospital pharmacists.
With a high degree of cynicism, it looks like the Society is onto a
really good thing with us. Money for nothing (well almost nothing)!
So what should the Society do for hospital pharmacists? From the latest
proposed amendments to the Charter and the decision to ballot members
before they and any other changes are brought in, it looks as though
the positive effects of the “Save our Society” victory is
a welcome change in direction towards all round better representation.
This will no doubt help all pharmacists in the future (although it would
have been nice for it to have been achieved without the loss of hospital
representation).
However this by itself is not enough.The Society needs to recognise,
and show that it recognises that it is not just community pharmacists
who have an impact on patient care.
More specifically, I have yet to see the Society produce any authoritative
material about patient group directions that, in my experience, has any
real bearing on hospital pharmacy practice. For example, tips for hospital
pharmacists are absent from the resource pack it has produced on the
subject (while those for community pharmacists are included).
Even where information on topics of interest to hospital pharmacists
is available, such as conference reports about how supplementary prescribing
is to work in a secondary care setting and continuing professional development
material, it can be difficult to find. This is often because the rather
poor search facilities on the Society’s web site tend to make it
disproportionately harder to locate the more specialist resources.
The Society also needs more effectively to promote the idea that direct
communication between hospital pharmacists and community colleagues could
help both sides deliver better medicines management.
Oh, and by the way, it would be nice if, by the time that the next NHS
recruitment campaign rolls around, the Society could see to it that hospital
pharmacists are up there with the carpenters, electricians, physiotherapists
and radiographers. Otherwise,I might have to consider re-fitting doors
or adapting furniture for a living!
|
Hospital Pharmacist