Cap on Pharmacy Schools

[looking243]

This is the first time I am constructing a thread so please excuse for any incorrect etiquette.

There are numerous threads on how there are many more graduates etc hence the formulation of this thread.

To be succint, my thoughts are: why are the number of pharmacy schools not capped, regulated and hence, the profession is not diluted with prolific pharmacists who will have to end up working as dispensers one day?

I have not given this topic much thought, but spontaneity and opening dialogue would be interesting.

Many thanks in advance for your time to reply.

[Asterix]

for christ sake, why would we end up as dispensers.

Who will spot interactions, who will check doses, who will contact the gp, who will counsel pts?

[culchie82]

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. An oversupply creates a cheap and compliant workforce. The only ones that benefit are the new Universities offering the courses and the Contractors, while the ordinary Pharmacist suffers as a result of decreased wages. Those who say that saturation will cause the "cream to rise the top" and that those Pharmacists who can offer services will prosper, ignore the clear empirical evidence from places such as Scotland, NI and London. Rates in these places are low (in the case of NI, embarrassingly low), with the result that Pharmacist A who offers additional services gets paid the same as Pharmacist B who offers no additional services. In short, saturation devalues the degree and Profession.

[Tony Schofield]

Without fighting about this Culchie, is it the case that pharmacists with no accreditations are routinely paid the same as those who have achieved various accreditations? I would be surprised but I would be interested to know if this is the case.

[culchie82]

Without fighting about this Culchie, is it the case that pharmacists with no accreditations are routinely paid the same as those who have achieved various accreditations? I would be surprised but I would be interested to know if this is the case.

Yes.

[lamzee]

Yes.

Yes, GP practice pharmacists are paid 15 pounds an hour in NI.
Fact

[Merlyn]

Yes, GP practice pharmacists are paid 15 pounds an hour in NI.
Fact

I got a LOT more than that in England when I did it and I stopped 4 years ago.

[looking243]

.

[looking243]

To the best of my knowlege, a locum will receive an emolument in comparision to someone who has many additional accreditations who actually utilises these additional services. It is no wonder there are articles in the PJ about "Most would not choose pharmacy again, poll reveals".

Furthermore there is an article entitled "Pharmacists’ public health role should be incentivised, says forum". I feel a lot is said and little is shown and done as a result.

Those with higher authority who decide and regulate pharmacy as a profession surely know what direction they envisage pharmacy. Maybe pharmacists are not worth the time and effort, considering the initial aforementioned article?

[looking243]

for christ sake, why would we end up as dispensers.

Who will spot interactions, who will check doses, who will contact the gp, who will counsel pts?

My hypothesis is as follows; if there is a saturation of pharmacy graduates, will those who do not get a job as a pharmacist have to settle for something which is relevant to their time and effort of study, namely being a dispenser? I do not insinuate undervaluing the relevance of dispensers as they are now.

Yes we may one day be a pharmacist however become perfunctory in accepting that our roles will be dispensers who can spot interactions, counsel patients and provide the myriad of services that seem to be within the profession.

I feel there will be a profound diluting of the profession. It is called a profession for a reason (protected titled, profession time, knowledge, advice - the list goes on), however peoples well being and lives are within our occupation. Why is it that an influx of many more graduates can be regarded as "sieving the best from the masses".

Are medical school places not regulated? Maybe that is a poor paradigm but it serves the same purpose in terms of the point I am suggesting to inculcate.

Having an abundant of Pharmacists to me suggests the desecration and value of the profession. Sometimes I feel there is paltry exposure of Pharmacy. It would be perhaps unjust without critical consideration to say, people really do deem Pharmacists as an "overpaid shop assistant, counting pills and adhering labels to medicine"; albeit what actually, otherwise, do people think?

Ps. This is not a directed to solely Asterix, but is a generic response. I am in my final year of Pharmacy so I am still under the learning curve. All suggestions are welcome