I’ve been on holiday for the last week so have had more time to read the PJ than normal and hasn’t it been an interesting week in terms of comments about locums!

The furore started after the publication in the PJ  (15 May 2010) of a leading article (P466) and Broad Spectrum comment (P474) about the reliance in community pharmacy of a large proportion of locums. They even called the state of affairs  “Something rotten”

Comments on both pieces on PJOnline

You won’t be surprised that I think the conclusions reached by the researchers is a load of old tosh but I do welcome the PJ’s publication as it has opened a really important can-of-worms about the pharmacy workforce.

Why do pharmacists work as locums? In 2000, during the fallow year, the reason was probably mostly financial – the lack of pharmacists registering with the Society meant that the locums available could charge whatever they wanted as they knew that pharmacy operators were desperate. There’s nothing wrong with that, business is all about supply and demand and if there is a large demand and little supply, costs rise.

In 2010 things are very different. It’s probably true that in some parts of the country premium rates are still being paid because of a lack of locums but in many areas, the cost of locums in undoubtedly cheaper than employing a pharmacist, central London being a prime example.

So why then in these areas do pharmacists still want to work as locums? Various letters in the PJ explain why their pharmacist authors don’t like working as employee pharmacists e.g. excessive workload, pressure to undertake MUR’s , low staffing levels, stress etc and, as an ex-employee pharmacists, I can understand all that, but, player devils advocate, a more interesting question is why do pharmacists want to work as employees?

If you think about all the top professions e.g. GP’s, dentists, and solicitors, a high proportion of each work as self employed professionals. They stand on their own-two -feet and stand or fall by the service they provide …. oh, and charge a lot more than self employed pharmacists!

I’ve stated in previous posts that I feel that locum pharmacists (or Independent Pharmacist Practitioners as I like to call them) are the most professional pharmacists, like GP’s, standing or falling by the service they provide and I still feel that this is the case. The locum pharmacists we have working through PL-UK are a highly motivated, professional, conscientious bunch and I am proud that they work with us on a daily basis

The rubbish about locums providing a less effective service doesn’t stand up to scrutiny either, just think about it; All the evidence would indicate that working in a pharmacy, as a pharmacist is more difficult now that ten years ago.  Massively increased workload, less staff, MUR’s, lower profits from dispensing that have put more pressure on pharmacy operators large and small and subsequently, their employee pharmacists. Is it more stressful to work in this environment every day or on an ad-hoc basis as a locum? Locum pharmacists go to a booking and provide the best service they can. They know that it will probably be a busy day and can only do their best.  Even after the horror days that all locums have, they can leave the pharmacy at the end of the trading day safe in the knowledge they they don’t have to work their again. Just think of that pharmacies poor employee pharmacists who has to work in that environment every other day!

So is their “Something Rotten” about community pharmacies reliance on locum pharmacists? Not at all – it’s completely understandable. At University we are told that we are entering an honourable profession and that we must make difficult decisions on a daily basis. Surely, working as a locum pharmacists is the only way (Other than independently owned pharmacist owner/managers) where you can do that in 2010.