Future for pharmacists

[student]

I’ve read a few posts, and would like to know where you think pharmacist’s role is heading, some have said they won’t be dispensing providing less supervision and consulting more.

Also do you think that there ever will come a time were a pharmacists not required at all times at a pharmacy, surely not what would happen to the career.

Thank You

[student]

can anyone help ?

[SolomonQ]

to keep up to date with the changes in the pharmacy profession, reading of PJ is essential, but just to summarise where the proffesion is going... down the pan.

in the near future 10 years or so they'l have put required nuts and bolts into the pharmacy framework to ensure a pharmacist is not required on site (in the pharmacy). so pharmacists would then be more involved in things like diabetes clinics, anti-coagulation clinics, etc etc.. but we should have widespread prescribing rights by then. sounds good doesnt it because this might be okay for newly qualified people because the degree course is changing alongside the profession, but most older pharmacists would require ongoing training at their own initative to be comfortable with the changes.

the above sounds good doesnt it so why do I say the professions going down the pan, well because i predict we will have to do all the clinic work at a minimum reimbursement, the goverment see pharmacies as a cheaper alternatve to GPs in providing certain services. and at the same still have to be involved or be atleast directly responsible for the dispensing of medicines from the pharmacy. All this increase in work for minimum increase in pay for employed pharmacists.

[student]

so what your saying is more work ,more responsibilites less pay, but it does sound good.

Also would the pay be the same even though a pharmacist isnt required at a pharmacy at all times wouldnt it go down beacuse of this reason.

Thanks for your reply.

[SolomonQ]

so what your saying is more work ,more responsibilites less pay, but it does sound good

everything that shines isnt gold

Also would the pay be the same even though a pharmacist isnt required at a pharmacy at all times wouldnt it go down beacuse of this reason.

the pharmacist would be away in such case say at a care home or at a patient clinic, or conducting say MURs in the counselling room, so the pay will not go down because of this reason, also note the pharmacist may still be held responsible for any mistakes that happen in the dispensing, somehow they'l find a way to dicipline pharmacists for this,

but the pay may go down say if one pharmacist is deemed sufficient to be responsible for more than say one or two pharmacies as the pharmacy multiples wudnt require many pharmacist and would hire hire cheaper ACTs or qualified dispensers. Research the terms responsible pharmacist ans ACTs on the PJ website, see what you make of it.

peace out
A-Town!!!

[student]

read this

'PDA has campaigned and continues to campaign to ensure that remote supervision becomes no more than a far distant prospect. At our recent annual conference, we announced that, in the event that remote supervision was to be actively pursued, then we would be organising a significant publicity campaign to bring the unacceptable consequences of these proposals to the attention of the Government and the public.'

I read an article in the PJ they asked public and most said they won’t feel safe.

Do you really think its going to go ahead?

[SolomonQ]

lol, you still dont know about the powers that be, PDA is a pharmacist "union", so their opposition to the remote supersion shows what it means to the pharmacists, but the ones introducing them, well they the ones holding the royal flush in this game of poker.

so the PDA can put pressure on the government, but this government as everyone knows doesnt care. remote supervison is a way for them to cut costs in the NHS

[SolomonQ]

also to achieve the remote supervision is quite easy, all hat needs to be done is change the definition of "supervision" and "personal control" in terms of the pharmacist's relation to the activities of the pharmacy

[paul2008]

Originally Posted by student

I’ve read a few posts, and would like to know where you think pharmacist’s role is heading, some have said they won’t be dispensing providing less supervision and consulting more.

Also do you think that there ever will come a time were a pharmacists not required at all times at a pharmacy, surely not what would happen to the career.

Thank You

Hi Student,

I can't say pharmacy is really doing down the pan, its very much what you make of it and how you react to opportunities.

Pharmacy is changing.... it is very painful and very hard, different groups are trying to push the profession in different directions but I think most pharmacists agree that some of the old roles are obsolete and there are new uses for the unique knowledge and skills of pharmacists.

Pharmacy practice is becoming increasingly localised, the way they do things in the US,Canada, Australia or Europe is no longer necessarily the way things are going to be done in the UK.

In theory your pharmacy curriculum and pre-reg training should equip you with the basics so that you can adjust to current and changing roles. However in this technological age, you cannot expect your role to stay the same until you retire. Fifty years ago things were probably very different, who know what things will be like 50 years from now.

I have heard one plan to employ the pharmacist to do clinical check and allow the drug companies to sell/dispense the drugs directly to the patient. Mail order stuff can be quite quick these days and this could be a cheaper (for the NHS) and more efficient system. Money is limited, however you look at it, and the current system does not really represent best value or greatest efficiency but it works. Robotic dispensing is also an option but we have to look at who fills the machines.

Pharmacist's skills are increasingly needed as patients require increasing numbers of drugs, who else will wade through the interactions, duplications of treatment and the unintended effects.

Paul

**At this point in time I am not a pharmacist in any part of the world and these observations only represent my view**

[the old merlin]

Paul, that's very true. Much of what I committed to memory to regurgitate for exams almost 50 years ago is irrelevant now.

And my last couple of jobs appeared to have little relation to what I learned.

However, as this evolve rather than change dramatically there's always something hanging about. And an understanding of the basic principles of chemistry, biology and physiology will always be essential.

If I was to try and identify the biggest change in my lifetime I would say it was the "inclusion" of the patient. Offering them information, rather than having them drag it out.
And I'm all in favour of that; always was.