From Mr M. A. Alvi
After working all day at the pharmacy, I am completely drained and feel tired mentally, which affects my concentration and motivation. Most of the time, I am involved in pharmacy practice-based tasks, and there is no or little time to gain all the clinical knowledge required.
The integration of preregistration with the MPharm degree mentioned in the White Paper is a fantastic idea and should have been done years ago.
One way of making things easier for preregistration trainees is to cut down their working hours in the pharmacy, which will provide them extra time to improve their clinical knowledge. They should also be given some weeks off before their preregistration exam so they can prepare better for it.
Mohammad Ayub Alvi
Birmingham
From Mrs S. Aziz, RegPharmTech
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society should stick to this requirement because pharmacists need to be experienced role models for their trainee and teach them about professionalism. Some pharmacies (namely large multiples) are asking pharmacists who have been qualified for less than three years to take on a trainee under special circumstances. This is unfair.
They appear to be just looking for an extra person to serve on counters, ignoring their need for training and becoming a health professional. This requires more than getting a degree: they need the right attitudes and qualities as well. Having worked with many pharmacists over the years, the degree of professionalism is wide and concerning.
Shagufta Aziz
London
help
extra study
Unfair contracts for preregistration trainees
From Mr R. Akhtar, MRPharmS
I recently received a phone call from an old friend, in the final year of his pharmacy degree course. He asked my advice on his preregistration year options. His first choice was for a position at Boots, however I was alarmed when he explained that if he took up the position it would mean on qualification he would be tied down to work for the company for at least 12 months or face a £5,000 penalty. While doing locum work at a Boots store, the preregistration trainee working there confirmed that she too was subject to this contract.
This is tantamount to blackmail and exploitation of impressionable, emerging pharmacists. Newly qualified pharmacists should have a free choice on where they work and for whom they work because it is often a case of trial and error to find a domain in the pharmacy profession that suits them best.
For Boots to assume that every undergraduate should know where they want to carry out their preregistration training and practice for the first year after qualification is unrealistic.
Instead of dictating where a pharmacist may work for the first 12 months of practice, Boots should offer a contract that attracts pharmacists and not one that entraps them. I guess the latter would lead to pharmacists begrudgingly working over this 12-month period, with one eye on the calendar counting down the days to their release date.
What if universities imposed a system whereby all pharmacy students were compelled to sign a contract before enrolment, forcing them to work at the university after graduation?
What gives Boots the audacity to impose such conditions? Is the excuse, excessive training costs? Training may be costly but since 1 April 2005, a grant of over £16,000 has been payable to pharmacy contractors to subsidise costs for each preregistration trainee.
Imposing a £5,000 fine on those who wish to leave Boots immediately after their preregistration year is almost criminal. I ask all Boots’ current preregistration trainees to challenge this clause in their contract and question its legitimacy with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
I ask the Society why has this gone undetected so far, or is it one rule for Boots and another for the rest of us lowly, humble folk?
Rizwan Akhtar
Blackburn, Lancashire
Boots responds
From David Standerwick, head of professional resourcing, Boots
Boots invests millions of pounds each year over and above the preregistration training subsidy in line with our long-established policy of attracting, training, developing and rewarding great pharmacists. Most of our preregistration trainees have already developed a relationship with Boots over a couple of years through our extensive and well-recognised summer placement programme.
This programme represents the first step in a partnership we seek to develop with our pharmacists and demonstrates a commitment from Boots, which continues throughout a pharmacist’s career.
It is important to make the point that the potential repayment referred to by the correspondent is not a penalty for leaving Boots within a pharmacist’s first year post-registration. It represents a reasonable contribution, calculated as the proportion of lost training costs invested by the company for the benefit of the individual preregistration trainee who leaves soon after registration.
Boots is not alone in the industry in adopting this approach in some localities but we do believe we are unique in terms of the overall preregistration experience. We also believe that this experience is not limited to the preregistration year and the formative early years as a qualified pharmacist are equally as important and we have our ASPIRE and Stepping Stones programmes to develop both the clinical and managerial aspects of a pharmacist’s career.
We make our investment in our people with a view to continuing the relationship built since we first recognised that individual’s potential, even as an undergraduate.
Within Boots, the opportunities are truly unique, both in terms of career potential and also reward, especially since the introduction of our industry leading bonus scheme for all teams, including pharmacists.
We take a long-term view with regard to career development within Boots. We truly believe in life changing work and we invest to support that belief.
developing a partnership?
Its interesting that Mr Standerwick points towards the Boots Summer placement programme as developing a relationship, unfortunately since Boots decided to abolish the Pre reg interview, taking up a placement a year before pre reg is the only way of getting a placement with Boots. They are effectively forcing the hands of young trainee pharmacist. They now continue to force the hands of employees to stay with them by imposing a £5000 fine if they decide that they no longer wish to work with Boots.
These young impressionable pharmacist should have the freedom to look at other practices and sectors of the proffesion before making a informed decision as to where they choose to ply their trade, instead of being financially tied down to stay.
This I dont believe is the best way to 'develop a partnership'.
What makes this point more substantial is that instead of enchancing the pre registration training year Boots have actually taken away from it in the past years. Most importantly they have removed the cross sector placement, enabling young pharmacist to experience the more clinical environment of a hospital setting. One presumes this is effectively to cut costs, whilst they get reimbursed better than they ever have for providing pre reg training. This cross sector training is essential in providing communication skills and a better understanding of how primary and secondary care can combine to give seamless care.
I hope young pharmacist are better served elsewhere if this level of de-investment is occuring.