Poll: Does your workplace have a professional services pharmacist?

blood pressure checks: hands on assessment paper

We want to know if your workplace employs a pharmacist dedicated mainly to the provision of professional services

The recently published UTS Pharmacy Barometer asked 178 pharmacy owners and owner managers whether they employed a pharmacist dedicated mainly to the provision of professional services.

One fifth (19%) of pharmacy owners and owner managers indicated that they did employ a professional services pharmacist, however the majority (81%) did not.

The report authors suggested that this was perhaps due to the volume of service delivery.

“Over time we can expect to see this number grow as the positions become more viable,” said PSA director and past president Warwick Plunkett.

We wanted to poll our readers (both employees and owners): does your workplace have a dedicated professional services pharmacist?

This means a pharmacist who was hired with the specific purpose of providing professional services, with these services comprising the majority of their role.

This role can be filled by a colleague, employee or yourself.

If the answer is ‘yes’, please let us know in the comments section below what kind of professional services that your dedicated pharmacist provides.

Previous Don't forget the bush
Next Back pain for one in four

NOTICE: It can sometimes take awhile for comment submissions to go through, please be patient.


  1. Steve Flavel

    Considering the funding for professional services has essentially come out of the decreased remuneration from dispensing via price disclosure, it is disappointing that the alleged payback of funds through the delivery of professional services should come at the cost of another pharmacist on the payroll.

    Seriously, how many small pharmacies do you think are going to remain in existence if a dedicated ‘Professional service Pharmacist’ is expected to be the norm?

    • Paul Sapardanis

      Correct. Funding for these new roles is so low that it is not viable to hire a specific pharmacist for this. What I am finding is that pharmacies that had 2 or more pharmacists at any one time have converted one of these pharmacists into the new role ( or at least partly ). The other pharmacist(s) are then asked to carry a greater traditional role to offset the loss ( partial ) of a colleague. Single pharmacist pharmacies have not had the ability to do this and have therefore missed out on this opportunity. Further and a little off topic I know but discount pharmacies would also constitute the former rather than the latter especially if the small pharmacy is owner operated

    • Andrew

      Is this similar to what seems to be happening with GPs? The government looks to be promoting economies of scale with MBS funding decisions, providing a push factor for GPs to consolidate in to larger practices and finding efficiencies that way.

      My suburb has three pharmacies that are staffed by a lone owner-pharmacist alone – no assistants, no delivery boy, no technicians. I can understand the reasons that this level of staffing might be necessary, but are the pharmacists in these businesses (each open 10-11 hours a day) able to provide the level of clinical support we’d hope for or expect? To me, it’s not dissimilar to what’s happening in pharmacies – there’s not many single-GP practices around anymore.

  2. Bruce ANNABEL

    I think the point is being missed. The best way to explain that is from my experiences: all pharmacists working in the pharmacies I’m associated with are professional service pharmacists who also deliver professional services. Simply allocating one pharmacist with the role doesn’t work particularly well.

Leave a reply