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]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

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]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

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]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

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]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

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]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

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]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

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]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

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]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

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]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

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

[u2bawooly]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

band6 you tit, this is my career you are talkin about. I don't give a f**k how friendly you are with techs. My job is at stake, you wana fight over it i'm game. You wana suppress someone for fightin on my side then i'm on his. Utter t*t. You don't give a sh*t about my livelihood, my bills and puttin food on the table. Im still in 20,000 debt from uni you utter pr**k.

[Band6]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

Hey Kemzero,

Good points there. I'll reply to some of your questions in order so I don't get in a muddle.

Clinical and MI techs - Now, first off, I admit I only have experience of the course that we put our student techs through, which is an NVQ 3 with BTEC underpinning knowledge. I don't know how this measures up to courses such as the buttercup course etc. This actually gives them quite a lot of [I]basic[I] pharmacology (I was surprised at the amount that I had to teach). In addition to this (and after enough experience), techs have to undertake an extra diploma through the London school of pharmacy, plus a whole load of assessments on the job, before they can be a clinical tech. An MI tech has to undertake the UKMI course to become an accredited MI tech. The constant revalidations are quite harsh! These are not just ACTs toddling about on the wards. They still must work under the supervision of a pharmacist, and refer as appropriate. Its just the ward pharmacist they work under and not a dispensary pharmacist. They are there to deal with the run of the mill stuff (chart re-writes, help with discharge planning, screening simple charts, looking for allergies, give lower grade advice, spot some drug interactions), freeing up the pharmacist to concentrate on the complicated queries. They support, not replace, the ward pharmacist.

Career progression - This is a bit of a weird one... Agenda for Change (AfC) was supposed to iron out the inter-hospital glitches with regards to what grades did what. It seems to have done the opposite as the banding was carried out by local commitees (usually within the hospital). You are supposed to go from band 6, then 7, then 8a etc etc. Problem is, there are lots of band 6 positions, lots of 8a, but far fewer band 7. Moving up may be a problem, unless you can jump a band (which is not supposed to happen, but does as they need bodies in post. I'm considering applying for an oncology pharmacist post at the moment - just waiting to see what banding it gets. (I should say that I'm two years post qualification, just finished my diploma which is a must for career progression in hospital).

I've got to say that an associate membership sounds like a good idea, with limited voting rights. Even I don't like the idea of someone I'm supposed to supervise voting on the way I practice. However, techs should be allowed to vote on issues that affect them. I see the new professional body providing leadership and training to the whole profession, with standards being applied equally to all. If we force techs to register with the GPhC, they should have an involvement in the way the profession evolves. Look what happened last time someone said "No taxation without representation".

[Steve G]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

Regulation and representation are two different things. Just because ourselves and techs will both be regulated by GPhC, doesn't mean we have to be represented by the same professional body.

[Band6]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

u2bawooly,

Thank you for your helpful reply there that answered all of my questions. If you have nothing further to contribute, may I suggest getting an extra job on the tills at your local Tesco's to help you out with your money and career worries. However, I would understand if you did not want to leave the university that you teach at - your eloquent prose and ability to apply a balanced argument shows how well suited you are for the job

[Band6]

Re: Can opened - worms all over the floor..!

Regulation and representation are two different things. Just because ourselves and techs will both be regulated by GPhC, doesn't mean we have to be represented by the same professional body.

Fair comment. Two points I would throw open for discussion however:

1. If there are two professional bodies, the new professional body would completely overshadow the APTUK. I hear nothing from them at the moment (and most techs I know don't rate it at all - one of the reasons they want to join the new body.) and this would get worse with the new body. Professional leadership and representation would be better for both under one roof. Otherwise the pharmacists would be able to railroad anything through.

2. The public perception is of pharmacy as a whole, not pharmacists and pharmacy techs. Surely a body to represent and lead the profession as a whole would be better?