There appears to be some further misinformation circulating regarding “pharmacist shortages”. This “Locum Rates Study” was prepared for Employers by Locate a Locum.
“Another notable change in the pharmacist market is the movement of community pharmacists to Primary Care Networks. In May 2022, Pulse reported that 16,780 *pharmacists* had been hired with support from the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS).”
2/
This appears to be based on this Pulse article, which in fact reads:
“According to NHS Digital figures – which are based on data submitted by 84% of PCNs – 16,780 **staff** have been hired into ARRS roles and are working in general practice.”
I’m sure all those with integrity will be clamouring to correct the record after presenting inaccurate information.
5/
Excerpt from the document. If setting rates based on information in the document “can help you save money”, it sounds like it’s designed to achieve lower rates. Any competition law experts care to comment?
6/
It’s a document providing an “analysis” and figures on locum pay rates. I understand that the NPA sent this out.
RPS:
“The evidence from our 2021 Workforce Wellbeing survey shows that the pressures on the pharmacy workforce continues to negatively impact on mental health and wellbeing…”
From the survey - the top factors for poor mental health and wellbeing:
70% - inadequate staffing
64% - long work hours and lack of work/life balance
53% - lack of protected learning time
52% - lack of colleague or senior support
2/
In the context of the survey results, at its annual conference it ran a "morning breathing workshop" followed by a “mid-morning breathing workshop”.
20,924 reported #pharmacy closures in a year. Most common reported reason: “locum could not be found”.
Was the locum hiding somewhere, in a bizarre game of hide and seek?
Or couldn’t they find a locum *willing to work in the conditions on offer*?
Did they try to find a locum?
In no cases was the reported reason “it would have cost more for a locum in a free market than we wanted to pay” or “unable to find a pharmacist willing to work in the conditions in the pharmacy”. The reported reasons don’t tell the whole story.
2/
Based on the C&D article, there appear to be 5,665 closures for which no reason is listed. (20924-10637-2891-811-432-221-141-74-19-10-16-7= 5665). Did NHSE allow the pharmacy to close without requiring the owner to provide a reason?
3/
The change would pave the way for a pharmacist-only professional leadership body which doesn’t have the issue of trying to represent two distinct groups, whose interests will often conflict and compete.
2/
For those who haven’t considered it, the conflicts will include, for example, whether to employ a pharmacist or a pharmacy technician for a particular job or role; whether a particular activity or service should be reserved for or delivered by a particular group;
3/
“…the NHS tactic of poaching community pharmacy staff to work in general practices is absurd and having very damaging consequences for community pharmacies."
“Poaching” suggests it is done in a clandestine manner, ignoring the fact that staff will be actively applying and engaging with recruitment processes for other roles
2/
New internal Lloydspharmacy documents reveal how it manages the GPhC, and how the GPhC allows itself to be managed.
Thread /🧵
The documents say that the GPhC will continue to “support pharmacy” (as opposed to regulating it?) and “seek assurances” about how the pharmacy *is continuing to meet* the standards (as opposed to determining impartially *whether or not* its standards have been met).
2/
The GPhC will take a “more proportionate” (codeword, in respect of regulation, for “lazier”; signifies deregulation and poorer public protection) approach by phoning some pharmacies instead of visiting them.
The irony being that they’re discussing the outcome of a *consultation* in which the responses opposing the new regulatory powers were set aside, then saying don’t worry, any changes will be *consulted* on.
2/
Of course, this has become a feature of politics - pretending not to see the irony, sort-of-hoping that others won’t, but not really caring if they do. Nevertheless, embarrassing for those who do it.
3/