Search results

The New Zealand Pharmacy Action Plan 2016–20 acknowledges the young, highly qualified pharmacist workforce, and seeks to address pharmacist underutilisation in the wider health setting. Anecdotal evidence suggests many recently qualified pharmacists are dissatisfied with the profession. Therefore, those completing BPharm programs after 2002, who had left or were seriously considering leaving the New Zealand pharmacy profession, were invited to comment on future-focused pharmacy documents, and the current direction of pharmacy in New Zealand.

An online questionnaire was open December 2018 to February 2019. Recruitment occurred via e-mail lists of universities and professional organisations, print and social media, and word-of-mouth. Free-text responses were thematically analysed using a general inductive approach.

From the 328 analysable surveys received, 172 respondents commented on the documents and/or direction of the pharmacy profession. Views were mixed. Overarching document-related themes were positive direction, but concern over achievability, the lack of funding details, lack of implementation, their benefits for pharmacists and the public, and ability to bring about change and secure a future for the profession. Overall pharmacy was considered an unattractive profession needing to change.

This study highlights dissatisfied recent BPharm graduates agree with the vision in the documents but do not see progress towards achieving the vision occurring, leading to frustration and exit in some cases. Policymakers should be aware of these views as considerable resource goes into their development.

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.