Priced Out of the Market?

[openmind]

Originally Posted by Zoggite

If I was a pharmacy owner looking to employ a pharmacist, I would sooner go for an experienced one whose English may not be A-grade than for a well-spoken, native English-speaker fresh out of University any time!
Incidentally, does anyone know whether Canada has language requirements for their pharmacists? Would you be able to work in Quebec if you didn't speak fluent French?

That would Depend on what your definition of "A grade" is.

We are constantly being told about Fitness to practice, surely the ability to communicate effectively in English is essential for patient safety?

[N.T]

Originally Posted by openmind

We are constantly being told about Fitness to practice, surely the ability to communicate effectively in English is essential for patient safety?

Well, since the 'ability to communicate effectively in English' is one of the essential competancies where multiple pieces of evidence must be shown by pre-registration students to pass their pre-reg year then I don't see why this is not required for non-native pharmacists.

Whilst I guess that 'ability to communicate effectively in English' is a technical requirement - I'm sure the multiples employing overseas pharmacists overlook this. (Or define 'effective communication' as the ability to follow instructions (i.e. be bullied) from store managers (non-pharmacists) and dispensers (ignorant people).

The worrying thing is, at various Schools of Pharmacy (e.g. London SOP, Aston), the majority of the undergrads spend most of their undergrad course NOT speaking in English. Their written and oral presentations, when done in English, are awful. This does not bode well for a career where effective verbal and non-verbal communication is one of the most important aspects of the job.

[openmind]

Whilst I guess that 'ability to communicate effectively in English' is a technical requirement - I'm sure the multiples employing overseas pharmacists overlook this. (Or define 'effective communication' as the ability to follow instructions (i.e. be bullied) from store managers (non-pharmacists) and dispensers (ignorant people).

So True, What other profession takes orders from non-professional people?

Does a pharmacist have to own the pharmacy to really call the shots?

[openmind]

Originally Posted by N.T

Well, since the 'ability to communicate effectively in English' is one of the essential competancies where multiple pieces of evidence must be shown by pre-registration students to pass their pre-reg year then I don't see why this is not required for non-native pharmacists.

Whilst I guess that 'ability to communicate effectively in English' is a technical requirement - I'm sure the multiples employing overseas pharmacists overlook this. (Or define 'effective communication' as the ability to follow instructions (i.e. be bullied) from store managers (non-pharmacists) and dispensers (ignorant people).

The worrying thing is, at various Schools of Pharmacy (e.g. London SOP, Aston), the majority of the undergrads spend most of their undergrad course NOT speaking in English. Their written and oral presentations, when done in English, are awful. This does not bode well for a career where effective verbal and non-verbal communication is one of the most important aspects of the job.

So True, what other profession takes orders from non-professional people?

[silnarnin]

Regarding multiples, I can only speak from my own experience:

I was recruited by Boots in Portugal. During the day long interview, I had an English examination (grammar, listening and oral skills), plus a conversation with a manager from Boots. During that conversation, I was asked basic clinical questions and did basic pharmaceutical calculations. Yes, with the interviewer looking at me.

I was selected, and I had three months training. I had a law and ethics exam at the end, and did the Heath Assistants course. Most foreign pharmacists need to pass IELTS to go to Boots, but because I already had the Proficiency in English this wasn't needed.

The point is multiples do take care about who they employ. If a pharmacist isn't good enough, they'll loose clients, prescriptions and money!

Regarding that "senokot incident", I always look at the box before I give my advice. If by any chance it says do not take it if you are on medication, I would be going against the product licence if I advised the patient to take it. The same happens with simple linctus: I can't see any problem in a pregnant women taking it, but it says there that "speak with your doctor before...", so I don't recomend it to pregnant women. They say it to cover their backs, and I follow covering mine.

[Steve G]

Originally Posted by N.T

The worrying thing is, at various Schools of Pharmacy (e.g. London SOP, Aston), the majority of the undergrads spend most of their undergrad course NOT speaking in English. Their written and oral presentations, when done in English, are awful. This does not bode well for a career where effective verbal and non-verbal communication is one of the most important aspects of the job.

Don't agree with that. I graduated from Aston in 2005, and to say that the majority of undergrads spend most of their time communicating in a language other than english is not true. Yes a few in my year did, but only a few, by no means the majority.

[Zoggite]

Originally Posted by openmind

surely the ability to communicate effectively in English is essential for patient safety?

Depends on where you are in the country: in some inner cities, the ability to communicate effectively in Urdu or Punjabi is more essential, and in some rural parts of Wales (and they do exist...), Welsh is essential. What about dealing with patients who are profoundly deaf?

[openmind]

Originally Posted by Zoggite

Depends on where you are in the country: in some inner cities, the ability to communicate effectively in Urdu or Punjabi is more essential, and in some rural parts of Wales (and they do exist...), Welsh is essential. What about dealing with patients who are profoundly deaf?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't English the principal language of the UK?

[openmind]

Originally Posted by silnarnin

Regarding multiples, I can only speak from my own experience:

I was recruited by Boots in Portugal. During the day long interview, I had an English examination (grammar, listening and oral skills), plus a conversation with a manager from Boots. During that conversation, I was asked basic clinical questions and did basic pharmaceutical calculations. Yes, with the interviewer looking at me.

I was selected, and I had three months training. I had a law and ethics exam at the end, and did the Heath Assistants course. Most foreign pharmacists need to pass IELTS to go to Boots, but because I already had the Proficiency in English this wasn't needed.

The point is multiples do take care about who they employ. If a pharmacist isn't good enough, they'll loose clients, prescriptions and money!

Regarding that "senokot incident", I always look at the box before I give my advice. If by any chance it says do not take it if you are on medication, I would be going against the product licence if I advised the patient to take it. The same happens with simple linctus: I can't see any problem in a pregnant women taking it, but it says there that "speak with your doctor before...", so I don't recomend it to pregnant women. They say it to cover their backs, and I follow covering mine.

When you were doing those calcuations were you allowed a calculator? (just to sort-of mimic RPSGB pre-reg exam conditions)

Multiples don't care that much about who they employ, If they did care so much then they would pay more than the independants.

So when someone asks for Panadol Actifast and is on BP medication do you check the box too?

[Zoggite]

Originally Posted by openmind

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't English the principal language of the UK?

The principal one, yes; but not the only one...

Sorry if I appear to be a bit "touchy" about this subject, but I have experienced linguistic bullying & extremism first-hand (not in the UK), and am now very wary of any moves to restrict access to professions on the grounds of language alone...