|
During 2005,
pharmacy
technicians will have their first chance to register with the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society, with registration set to become
compulsory from 2007. From many technicians’ point of view, this
has been “a long time
coming” — the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK (APTUK)
has campaigned for such a move for all of its 52-year formal existence.
In recent years, pharmacists in the hospital sector and at the Society
itself have warmed to, and largely supported, the idea of mandatory registration
for pharmacy technicians. However, this has not always been the case.
It is also fair to say that positive sentiments on this issue are still
not universally expressed throughout pharmacy’s wider political
spectrum.
Now that technicians, despite the opposition, have reached this milestone,
it is important that they take the time to think about what registration
does (and also does not) mean for them, both individually in whatever
field they practice, and collectively.
The benefits of registration are a well-trodden debate, and going into
detail about them is not the purpose of this piece. Ironically, however,
many of these benefits are now being extolled by pharmacy organisations
that have previously rejected the need for registration outright.That
aside, once the mandatory register is in place there will be a single,
clear and unambiguous standard for entry as a technician into the workforce.
It will also mean that pharmacy technicians are regulated against a clear
ethical framework for practice. All of this is to be welcomed, on behalf
of technicians themselves, the organisations they work for and, moreover,
the patients they play a part in caring for.
What registration does not mean, however, is that technicians will be
represented by the Society. Unlike their pharmacist colleagues (as members),
technicians (as registrants) will need to look elsewhere to ensure their
views are heard. Although this in itself is not a particular concern — most
other health professionals have distinct bodies to regulate and represent
them — many technicians seem to be unaware of the nuances of the
Society’s function as far as they are concerned. They therefore
run the risk of being poorly represented, unless they take the opportunity
to register an interest in their future and join up with APTUK.
There is a clear and fundamental need to ensure that there is strong,
effective professional representation for all technicians, including
those working in hospitals. That way, technicians’ individual views
will be considered and their collective voice recognised and heard at
all levels. All of this is particularly important given the current interest
in pharmacy technicians, not only in the “pharmacy technician world”,
but in the wider pharmacy profession and beyond.
It is also imperative that technicians know where to find information
that has been tailored to meet their needs about subjects such as Agenda
for Change, continuing professional development and whether they should
hold liability insurance. The latter issue is particularly important
because, although a lot of advice is available on this topic, much of
it has been created on behalf of other stakeholders, such as those who
employ pharmacy technicians or represent employers’ interests or
those of their insurers, or emanates from well-meaning but non legally-qualified
colleagues.
So what is being done to ensure that technicians understand the need
to engage with those who represent them? In a recent joint statement,
the Society and APTUK outlined a commitment to ensuring effective professional
representation for pharmacy technicians through APTUK.
It is too early to tell whether initiatives such as the joint statement
have helped get the message across. One glimmer of hope is that pharmacy
technicians seem at least to know that they want such representation.
Over the past five or six years, I have spoken to literally hundreds
of pharmacy technicians from all backgrounds and all areas of practice.
There has been a unanimous response of “yes” among them to
the following three questions:
· Do you think that your views as pharmacy
technicians are important to the development of
pharmacy services in the future?
· Do you think that
pharmacy technicians should have a say in what happens in pharmacy
and the health sector as a whole?
· Do you think that
pharmacy technicians should have a strong
professional organisation for engaging, representing and communicating
their views to their regulator, to their employers and to policy makers?
The tests for pharmacy technicians over the next few years will be whether
they recognise the critical importance of having effective representation
and whether their actions on this point match the passion of their words.
As they register with their new regulatory body, I sincerely hope that
pharmacy technicians will start taking a greater interest in both their
own future and that of the pharmacy profession as a whole — a profession
to which, after a long and hard fought 52 years, they will at last be
able to say they belong.
References
1. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the Association
of Pharmacy Technicians UK.
Clarity on roles of organisations. Pharmacy Technician 2004;Autumn:16-17. |
Hospital Pharmacist