The PDA recalls numerous meetings going back over several years with senior RPSGB officials, prior to spring 2009, where it tried to push the Society into acting on workplace pressures faced by pharmacists. The Society wasted several years as it continued to deny its very existence due to what it claimed was a lack of evidence.
So although it came out of the blue, the PDA cautiously welcomed the U-turn in the spring of 2009, when the Society announced that it was now to launch its Workplace Pressures Campaign.
This RPSGB initiative was launched in a high profile PR campaign which at times almost appeared to indicate that the Society had discovered a shocking (and hitherto unknown to anyone else) problem within the profession – that thousands of pharmacists are suffering from unacceptable levels of stress in the workplace. The campaign was to be personally spearheaded by no less than the Society’s President Mr Steve Churton.
Perhaps it is cynical of us to suggest that this new initiative had its root cause in the fact that within months the Society knew it would be a voluntary body and needed to show some (albeit belated) member-friendly initiatives. It mattered not to the PDA what the motives were, what mattered was that the Society had finally opened its eyes to this problem and we resolved in our members’ interests to join the campaign. However, working with the Society on this matter has proved very frustrating. Twelve months later, we are concerned that despite the hype, the Society’s words have not been matched by meaningful deeds having had plenty of opportunities to do so.
The results from the recent Chemist and Druggist and PDA annual salary survey show that the stress levels endured by pharmacists at the coalface have significantly increased in this last twelve months, it is clear that the RPSGB’s workplace pressure campaign has not delivered.
Forget the spin and stick to the substance
The annual review brochure of the RPSGB describes the work now being done by the Society to recognise that workplace pressure is one of the biggest concerns in pharmacy. Page 6 describes the organisation of a major workplace pressure conference, it states that the RPSGB Council has called for support within the profession for adequate rest breaks and finally it describes a ‘major report’ called ‘professional workload’ which the Society has now published.
Whilst we welcome this work, it is just not enough. None of these developments have resulted in improving the life of many, if any pharmacists at all. The PDA is still receiving hundreds of calls for help each year primarily because of excessive workload, and this is a growing trend also at the pharmacist support charity.
Judging by the smiling faces that populate this year’s RPSGB annual review, it seems that some of our current leadership are content with progress. Perhaps they truly believe that their workplace pressures campaign is the jewel in the crown of their improved member-friendly credentials.
We believe that if the RPSGB is not part of the solution, then it is actually part of the problem. The RPSGB must recognise its failings of the last twelve months and it must learn the hard lessons from them. What would help the situation is a more practical course of action taken by the RPSGB. Let us not forget that it is still the pharmacy regulator (until at least September 2010), so it could flex its regulatory muscles, however, it appears reluctant so to do.
Failure to investigate an employer that did not allow proper rest breaks
In September of 2009, the PDA submitted to the RPSGB a formal complaint calling for disciplinary action to be taken against a large multiple employer for, amongst other things, not allowing any proper rest breaks. However, the RPSGB refused to act, instead it stated that:
“You anticipate that our investigation will resolve a number of broad professional issues regarding employer’s responsibilities and good working practices. We do not deny that such issues are a concern and do need resolving, but we do not believe that the inspectorate and the RPSGB’s fitness to practice processes are the right and appropriate instruments in achieving the outcome that you are hoping for.”
Had the RPSGB taken disciplinary action, or even instigated a disciplinary investigation against this large multiple, then this would have sent a message to all those employers who deny rest breaks to pharmacists. This would have done far more to reduce workplace pressure and introduce rest breaks than what the Society did – publishing a Council discussion paper that called all employers to recognise rest breaks.
Failure to investigate a superintendent over RP memo to pharmacists
In October 2009, when the RP regulations were freshly launched, some employers where quite wrongly urging their pharmacists to sign on as RPs from 8.00am, when they started work at 9.00am. This retrospective signing on was a source of much concern and stress for pharmacists with many complaints received by the PDA from members.
The PDA applied considerable pressure and the RPSGB sent out advice to all pharmacists stating that Responsible Pharmacists (RPs) may not retrospectively sign on to allow the pharmacy to operate from 8.00am if they only arrived and commenced their duties at 9.00am as this was not a lawful practice.
However, the superintendent of a large pharmacy multiple decided to send out an internal memo to employee pharmacists which had the effect of telling them to disregard this advice because the employer did not agree with the position of the regulator.
Imagine the intolerable stress caused to pharmacists by being told one thing by the regulator and another by the employer. The PDA brought this to the attention of the RPSGB straight away, however, we are not aware of any disciplinary measures being taken against the superintendent pharmacist involved in this conduct, nor are we even aware of any disciplinary investigation being instigated.
Imagine if the RPSGB had indeed convened a disciplinary investigation into this matter, this would have sent a forceful message out to all pharmacists in positions of authority. The net effect of this would have produced far more impact upon reducing workplace pressure than what the Society did in fact do – which was to publish what the RPSGB calls a major report entitled “Professional Workload”.
Failure to act on the RP regulations
In the summer of 2009, large numbers of pharmacists were expressing serious concerns about the impending RP regulations. Many aspects of these regulations had very obviously not been thought out properly and consequently, they were not ready to be launched. This was a source of much stress amongst the pharmacy workforce and more than 5,000 pharmacists signed a petition calling for a delay to the launch of the regulations. Sadly, the RPSGB held a Council debate and decided not to support this call for a delay. The Society decided that it would instead seek clarification from the Department of Health so as to alleviate concerns. Clarification was to be sought about rest breaks, the legal position of which clashed with the RP regulations.
However, far from securing clarification from the department around rest breaks – the RPSGB instead secured clarification that allowed pharmacies (mainly the large multiples) to operate their pharmacies before the arrival of the RP. These moves, whilst good news for the employers, would have further increased the levels of stress and anxiety for RPs.
The PDA is already handling the first of a new breed of RP based civil, criminal and employment sanctions against pharmacists (see feature on pages 6 and 7) simply because of the fact that the RP regulations had not been properly thought through and were implemented too early. All of this could have been avoided had the profession stood united and the RPSGB had backed the calls of the PDA and many pharmacists for the delay to the implementation of the RP regulations.
So where to from here?
It is the view of the PDA that if the Society wants to be a member-facing body and that it is genuinely concerned about work place pressures, then its actions should match its stated intentions.
The Society’s current reluctance to flex its regulatory muscles and to take affirmative action against employers gives the distinct impression that it is an organisation that prefers to support the agenda of the large pharmacy multiple.
There’s an old adage that says; “If you want to be a duck, then you have to talk like a duck and walk like a duck.”
However, we believe that in the Society’s case, if it talks like a duck, but walks like a large pharmacy multiple, then it will fail to secure the trust and support of the membership that it so desperately desires.
There is now very little time left for the current RPSGB leadership to use its regulatory powers to bring some of the large multiples to account, in just a few short months, when regulation is handed to the GPhC, the RPSGB will lose this opportunity forever. We have no doubt that the newly elected board representatives that many PDA members voted for are alive to these issues and would be desperate to act decisively. However, by the time they take the reigns of the RPSGB, the regulatory role of the RPSGB will have gone forever.
These next few months will therefore represent the last historic opportunity for the Society to act decisively as a regulator.
We appealed to the RPSGB and its president at the recent AGM not to squander what is left of this regulatory opportunity, for if it were to act, then it may yet persuade pharmacists that it is serious about truly trying to resolve their workplace pressures.