Early years pharmacist retention – a listening exercise

Abstract Introduction Pressures on pharmacy workforces are increasing, with 88% of hospital pharmacists reporting high risk of burnout and 62% considering leaving their role due to the impact of work on wellbeing.1 Early years pharmacist (EYP) recruitment is increasingly challenging. Traditional pharmacist career pathways are in competition with increasingly preferred portfolio-based careers. Many trusts are introducing band 6 to 7 progressive schemes to improve retention, including at University Hospital Southampton (UHS). However, anecdotal departmental feedback suggests that EYPs feel this scheme is being applied unequally across different sections and there is discontent with differing workload and development opportunities. Aim To develop an understanding of concerns and expectations of Early Years Pharmacists at UHS. Methods All pharmacists in Agenda for Change band 7, and 6 to 7 progression posts, were invited to participate in an in-person forum. Attendance was voluntary but supported by the senior pharmacy management team. The group facilitator, a senior pharmacist known to participants, introduced the session topics, explained the rationale, then asked participants to provide written comments anonymously on a range of topics. Comments were gathered at the end of the session and thematically analysed with review from an experienced qualitative researcher. Whilst deemed a service evaluation, not requiring ethics approval, data was recorded and managed in accordance with best ethical practices. Results Twenty-Eight EYP attendees provided 102 separate comments. Themes identified related to departmental progressive post variations in; on-call expectations, mentoring, opportunities for formal credentialling, and feedback from line managers. The variations were perceived to be unjust. Commonly, points raised related to professional development. Issues included protected study time both for those undertaking post-graduate courses and those not, workload demands meaning that time for development was limited, and inequalities of access. Discussion/Conclusion As anticipated, there was discontent within the group particularly regarding perceived variations in workload, role opportunities and progression across the department. Additionally, there was some antipathy regarding whether things could be improved. However, the forum feedback suggested the opportunity to participate was well received, having provided participants an opportunity to raise their concerns in a confidential, collaborative, manner. Following initial headline feedback of EYP feeling unappreciated, all senior leaders were reminded of the importance of positive feedback and anecdotally the Trust systems for this have been used more frequently since this reminder. There are limitations with this evaluation, the group was too large to truly be considered a focus group and as such the facilitator was unable to interact with all members and probe for further information which may have been helpful. Furthermore, the facilitator was line manager for a small number of the participants, and they may have felt less able to make negative comments despite the anonymous comment collection. Several of the points raised have led to further questions and we now intend to conduct a formal qualitive study using semi-structured interviews with volunteers across the department to obtain more detailed insight into the challenges of this staff group. Meanwhile work will continue to make the EYP process and experience more equitable. Reference 1. Royal Pharmaceutical Society (2023). ‘Workforce and Wellbeing Survey 2023’. Available online. [Accessed 7th May 2024].