Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

[Band6]

Okay, I've been a good pharmacist and have been reading my PJ's. I've been saddened and embarrassed by the writing of some pharmacist denouncing technician registration and inclusion into the new professional body - the lack of manners of some of these people makes me want to smack them in the face. I'm all for it myself - but then the techs I work with perform such a massive number of roles - some of which have traditionally pharmacists roles - to free up my time to concentrate on stuff that pharmacists are best suited for, that I guess I can only see the positives.

What say you all? (and keep it polite eh?)

[SolomonQ]

technicians are a valuable members of the pharmacy team, some more than others, and the qualified ones deserve their own union/representative body, so i'd say keep them separate, the pharmacist roles, reponsibilities and expectations etc.. are very different to that of technicians, I think inclusion into the new professional body would sideline their interests as the pharmacists would be too dominant,

so I say let them have their own professional body not because I hate them but because it's in their own interests.

[u2bawooly]

i read that too, but i agree with the article and letters. Fairdoos to those who discuss the taboo of technician membership. No-one insulted technicians in those peices. The principle wasnt to slag em off, it was purely about remote supervision and how technicians compound that problem, which we have discussed very much on these forums and you obviously havent been a part of, I want to smack Band 6 in the face for getting her knickers in a twist without reading the details.
PS Stop press, have you checked the locumvoice forum. 19 out of 19 don't want tech membership. Maybe Band 6 hasn't been paying attention to the arguments against, please get up to speed before you start throwing shots.

[Jeff]

Band 6,
You've several different questions mixed into one.

Technician Registration - I'm for it - but should it be compulsory or voluntary?

Role of technicians - valuable, no doubts about that.

Technician membership of the New Body
Associate membership by all means - so that the new body can sell CPD packs and support to them (at a profit)
Full membership with equal voting rights to pharmacists? No I'm against that.
Technicians already have a body to represent technicians (APTUK)
A body to represent pharmacists and the profession should be limited to pharmacists only as full members.
In the event of a tension between pharmacists and technicians the new body couldn't represent both.

Jeff

[Band6]

Some interesting replies here. SolomonQ's comment about techs being sidelined is certainly an interesting point - I shall chat that one over with the techs at work, see what they say.

I started the thread because of the reaction of our registered techs to some of the letters/comments in the PJ. One pharmacist wrote that if techs were able to join the new professional, then he would not. A bit melodramatic I felt. I wonder how he gets on with techs he works with (or does he?) (its him I want to smack inthe face!).

Many of the techs I work with have clinical/MI roles - I feel that these in particular should be part of the new professional body.

Please post your replies, this is an area in which I would like to hear everyone else's views.

PS u2bawooly - I'm a bloke.

[Jeff]

Many of the techs I work with have clinical/MI roles - I feel that these in particular should be part of the new professional body.

I'm happy with a part - Associate membership with no voting rights. How big a part did you have in mind?

Jeff

[Steve G]

I think techs are great - I have an ACT, another one in training and several other experienced ones. My branch simply could not function without them, nor without the experienced counter staff. However, if techs are given full membership of our new professional body I will not join, but I am happy for them to have associate membership.

Techs have APTUK as their representative body. Why do they feel the need to join ours as well?

[u2bawooly]

if you smacked him in the face, i'd smack you harder. Fair play to people who put their views forward. Democracy and debate rules. The silly thing is, his points are centred around remote supervision and securing pharmacist jobs. You obviously arent concerned about that. You aren't the only pharmacist to be flippant to the consequences of allowing technicians to continue registration. They don't need to be registered to send em education packs. If you are a hospital pharmacist as your name suggests, then you probably wont be affected by remote supervision like community and locums.

[Band6]

I note that you are a university lecturer, may I ask what your experience with working in a pharmacy is? Do you currently locum? Are you a teacher practioner? What do the techs you work with think about the whole argument? When will I stop asking questions?! I'm trying to gauge the angle that you are seeing this from.

Anyone who is rude deserves a good hiding, the chap I'm talking about was rude. End of.

[kemzero]

Band 6

Clinical amd MI roles for techs...then what do p'cists do..is it really worth going down the uni route, if NVQ qualifications are enough to do the job.No offence to techs but most of them have never passed a biology or chemistry exam talk less of a pharmacology exam ( correct me if I'm wrong , I hate to sound politically incorrect but I feel subjects like these are the building blocks to ensuring a good clinical pharmacy service and patient safety

Band 6 are you newly qualified and do you think you'll progress to a band 8a or above in the next couple of years..what are job prospects like for p'cists in hospital .

Personally I feel clinical roles should be left for p'cists , I have no qualms with ACTs but I feel the line should be drawn for clinical roles...mainly because of its complexity


As for the new royal college...I don't mind if techs join, but not as full members,and should not have voting rights beause our interests would not be protected, they'll be out for themsleves and themselves only.If techs are given full membership, then I am sorry to say I won't join the new body.

Techs with qualifications higher than a NVQ level 3, eg a FdSC degree should be allowed to undetake a fast-track MPharm degree (2.5- 3years) + 3-6mnths pre-reg + pre-reg exam,because its all about ambition and career progression and every deserves a fair chance but not at the expense of others