Memorandum 106
Submission from the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain
is the regulatory body for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians
and, as such, has a statutory role in the accreditation of the
qualifications for pharmacist and pharmacy technician qualifications.
We therefore have a general interest in the provision of appropriate
levels of funding for the HE sector insofar as it impacts on the
university's ability to produce high quality pharmacy graduates
who are safe to deliver high quality NHS services and safe clinical
practice. In relation to the proposal to withdraw funding for
ELQ's our interest in the Committee's new inquiry is HEFCE's proposal
not to include pharmacy in the list of exempt ELQs subjects, which
seems to be an important omission in light of the fact that many
other healthcare subjects are exempt. The Society sees no reason
why pharmacy should be treated any differently to those subjects
and questions HEFCE's decision.
The Society draws the Committee's attention
to the submission from the Council of University Heads of Pharmacy
[CUHOP], which the Society fully supports. CUHOP points out that
pharmacy is being increasingly expected by the public, by policy
makers and by members of other healthcare professions to extend
its contribution to effective medicines use and the achievement
of better health outcomes envisaged in Our Health, Our Care,
Our Say and Our NHS, Our Future. Further, CUHOP makes the
point that the Society's own workforce modelling work predicts
a steady 5% increase in demand for pharmacists at a time when
demographic predictions suggest that the pool of younger students
applying to university is likely to decline. Indeed pharmacists
are on the UK Skills Shortage Occupations List.
At a time when there is research to suggest
additional pharmacists will be needed and young student numbers
are likely to decline, HEFCE's ELQs proposal may compound this
problem by denying mature graduates access to professional retraining
in this shortage subject. As the regulatory body we would be most
concerned if implementation of the ELQ policy erects a barrier
to exceptional mature students entering our profession—
the experience of medical schools that have established graduate
entry programmes is that this entry route to the register of qualified
doctors is very successful in attracting high quality and committed
doctors.
A related concern the Society would like to
share with the Committee is the view of pharmacy HEFCE's proposal
suggests: that it is as a laboratory science subject. Currently
pharmacy is funded exclusively at HEFCE Band B, for laboratory
work, which is substantially lower than Band A, for clinical work.
As CUHOP points out, pharmacy is moving ever more into the clinical
arena but this is not being recognised in any way by current HEFCE
funding. Clinical work in schools of pharmacy needs to be increased
substantially to prepare students for new roles, but this work
cannot be funded from Band B: the numbers simply do not add up.
To give the Committee an idea of the disparity, a Band B-funded
student earn a university £6,516 from HEFCE in 2007-8, while
a Band A student earns £15,332. On top of Band A funding,
medical and dental students have always attracted substantial
per capita NHS funding. The differential funds the clinical work
enjoyed by doctors and dentists as an integral part of their training—an
option which is denied to pharmacists. If pharmacy education is
to prepare students adequately for their profession, this issue
must be addressed—the teaching, learning and most importantly
assessments in pharmacy qualifications must develop to match the
level of responsibility for clinical care carried by our registrants.
To conclude, the Society wishes HEFCE to do
two things: first, to add pharmacy to the ELQs exemptions list
and, second, to re-examine the funding model for pharmacy to recognise
the new clinical role of pharmacists and its consequent impact
on the education of pharmacists.
January 2008
|
