Hi all, this is yet another micro-blog whilst I’m sat in a very hot car, waiting for Godo.
I was reading a short article on The Pharmacist website, about the Government’s response to the Hewitt Review. It is a good article so I’ll share the link…
The Pharmacist: Government issues lacklustre response to Hewitt Review
So there were many good points in the review that appear to have been glossed over by the government. But the one that constantly keeps getting pushed out in the media, is the shortage of pharmacists. Reference is made to the ARRS (Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme) that provided the funding that meant a number of pharmacists ended up in primary care (GP land).
In fact, Patricia Hewitt is credited as saying “ (ARRS) roles for community pharmacists within PCNs, ‘has on occasion exacerbated the problem of a general shortage of pharmacists’.”
There it is again, shortage. Now I’m probably seen as splitting hairs here, but there probably isn’t a shortage of Pharmacists (and certainly not as significant as some sectors would have us believe) but merely an unequal distribution, or an aversion to a sector, rather than a shortage.
In fact, further in the Hewitt report there is the quote that pharmacists were ‘now preferring to work within primary care rather than remain in community pharmacies or acute hospitals’. So the answer is clearly there. Certain sectors of pharmacy aren’t appealing to the pharmacists of the day. So we need to fix that, rather than remove the need for pharmacists in that sector.
I’d argue, if correctly spent on pharmacists who practice in community, for funding equity to the ARRS. It could provide funded/protected learning time, enhanced packages in terms of learning, career development, prescribing support or even two pharmacists in a pharmacy. That would be one approach to the ‘brain drain’.
Anyway, time for a cool drink.