Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Safe Staffing

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Safe Staffing

    An interesting article from the nursing times ...

    https://www.nursingtimes.net/news/wo...023024.article

    I’m certainly not an expert in this but it makes me wonder. If it is possible to recommend staffing levels in places such as these (and I am sure that they are probably just as varied as come of the community pharmacies out there) then could it be possible for the GPhC to do the same?

    Again, haven’t looked at it in any detail so there may be legitimate reasons why you can’t. I’m thinking more about the principle.

  • #2
    Safe staffing levels are those that don't absolutely depend on everyone working on 'emergency boost' or working 'free of charge' additional hours.
    I'm sure we are all OK with doing this to meet unprecedented demand but continuously; grinds everyone down.
    But not too worry, we are all easily replaced.


    47 BC : Julius Cesar : Veni Vidi Vici : I came, I saw I conquered.
    2018 AD : Modern Man : I shopped, I clicked, I collected.
    How times change.

    If you find you have read something that has upset or offended you an anyway please unread it at once.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think the gist of it is that if they can do it for a complex area (based on evidence obviously) then it should be able to happen in pharmacy. In actual fact, it does happen already in pharmacy. Multiples do use sophisticated modelling techniques to work out staff hours ... this must be based on evidence of some nature (even though the in's and out's may be protected by corporate privilege). Logically speaking, each pharmacy is different even though it may be in the same company. An out of town pharmacy is completely different from a high street one but working hours can still be modelled.

      The point I am making is that if the GPhC thinks it is too difficult to accommodate 'all types of pharmacies' then this is absolutely not the case. If a multiple can model working hours for different pharmacies, then the evidence base exists to model all pharmacies (with a few modifications). It could, therefore, be argued that safety can be helped by providing guidance on minimum staffing levels (and training) for different pharmacy types.

      The argument that 'each pharmacy is different' is simply not the case - and leaving staffing levels to the whim of a corporate entity that only has profit in mind is not only faulty but probably dangerous.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by dippsy View Post
        I think the gist of it is that if they can do it for a complex area (based on evidence obviously) then it should be able to happen in pharmacy. In actual fact, it does happen already in pharmacy. Multiples do use sophisticated modelling techniques to work out staff hours ... this must be based on evidence of some nature (even though the in's and out's may be protected by corporate privilege). Logically speaking, each pharmacy is different even though it may be in the same company. An out of town pharmacy is completely different from a high street one but working hours can still be modelled.

        The point I am making is that if the GPhC thinks it is too difficult to accommodate 'all types of pharmacies' then this is absolutely not the case. If a multiple can model working hours for different pharmacies, then the evidence base exists to model all pharmacies (with a few modifications). It could, therefore, be argued that safety can be helped by providing guidance on minimum staffing levels (and training) for different pharmacy types.

        The argument that 'each pharmacy is different' is simply not the case - and leaving staffing levels to the whim of a corporate entity that only has profit in mind is not only faulty but probably dangerous.
        So we are all working like we are to fit into the model... that's comforting!
        47 BC : Julius Cesar : Veni Vidi Vici : I came, I saw I conquered.
        2018 AD : Modern Man : I shopped, I clicked, I collected.
        How times change.

        If you find you have read something that has upset or offended you an anyway please unread it at once.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Pharmanaut View Post

          So we are all working like we are to fit into the model... that's comforting!
          We are ALWAYS working in a model ... whether it is a model of healthcare, economics, education etc.

          The issue is where the emphasis of that model is. If it is entirely skewed towards profit then safety loses. If it is entirely skewed towards safety then businesses will become completely inviable. The key is to have a balanced model. And remember, a model is only a model ... it is not real life.

          I personally believe that there are quite a few pharmacies out there that would fall short in a balanced test. But this is something we can not know for certain unless work like that mentioned above actually happens. But what I strongly believe is that simply visiting a pharmacy on one day every five or so years (or perhaps acting completely reactively when an issue is highlighted) is not the best way to show that a pharmacy is safe and operating well.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pharmanaut View Post
            Safe staffing levels are those that don't absolutely depend on everyone working on 'emergency boost' or working 'free of charge' additional hours.
            I'm sure we are all OK with doing this to meet unprecedented demand but continuously; grinds everyone down.
            But not too worry, we are all easily replaced.

            We listed every job, answering phone, dispensing, cleaning, every last thing. We audited most aspects of our tasks individually. We asked each member of staff to estimate time taken. We took the longest time and grossed it up by quite a margin. After all, each person that walks through our door is worth £5. As a business we want to make sure no one leaves because we can't see to them.
            Now we add the human element. Some teams have time to twiddle thumbs, clock watching till it's time to go home and leave on the dot, others are running around like headless chickens, not coping, leaving additional workload for other staff following, despite staying 30 minutes past closing.

            Comment


            • #7
              Just watched re Premier Inn and note that similar conditions to pharmacy where you are expected to work unpaid overtime. Many a time I have stayed after hours to count the scripts, enter CDs, make deliveries where I had problems even finding the address, etc because simply no time during day. Usually happened where both the regular pharmacist and dispenser were away. At one pharmacy the pharmacist and his wife (the dispenser) went on holiday and i was booked as locum, then found I was replacing two people. Also happened at another pharmacy over Christmas period. Complicated by not knowing the PMR system and the BNF copy missing. Just the one new assistant on the counter, of course.
              johnep

              Comment


              • #8
                Does anyone know of a pharmacy legal case where Corporate manslaughter charge was brought against senior managers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Primrose View Post
                  Does anyone know of a pharmacy legal case where Corporate manslaughter charge was brought against senior managers?
                  Since the law was created you count the number of convictions.

                  on that basis i would think there have never been charges brought against pharmacy senior managers.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Then this explains their reluctance to comply with safe staffing levels. They feel they are not obliged to comply with safety measures.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Primrose View Post
                      Then this explains their reluctance to comply with safe staffing levels. They feel they are not obliged to comply with safety measures.
                      As Dippsy said, it comes down to a trade off between safety and profit. Where you set the bar depends on your personal outlook. No one wants to have an adverse event, and certainly not one that will fall into their laps (Senior Management). Big companies run algorithms and as most days, across the company are incident free, the spotlight will naturally be on the exception. Whilst the other branches may well have ben accidents waiting to happen, nothing happened. This makes it harder to kick the can upstairs.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The RP regulations were a godsend to the multiples, enabling them to put the blame squarely on the pharmacist. Classic case of getting out from under was the Peppermint case,
                        johnep

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The 'Peppermint case' was a godsend for specials labs. They cashed in big time some companies stopped staff from ext prep and changed the sop to demand all ext prep is sent as a special allowing the likes of Martindale,Lexon etc to set their own sometimes horrifically high price for items.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X