With the second batch of the Pharm D students to come out in August this year from more than 30 pharmacy colleges and universities across the country, academicians from pharmacy institutions comment that the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) has to initiate efforts for the future prospects of the Pharm D graduates, and also for the programme.

The first batch of the six-year course came out in August 2014 from 22 institutions and 4 batches of the three-year Pharm D (PB) came out in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

In a telephonic and email interview with various pharmacy colleges conducting Pharm D course, the academicians from various institutions opined that they are concerned over the future of the course, especially on accreditation process in foreign countries and  equivalency with Pharm D programmes in USA, UK, Canada and Australia.

Dr M Sabitha, Principal of Amrita School of Pharmacy in Ernakulam said the PCI should convince the state governments and the central government about the scope and potential of the course, and demand creation of posts of ‘Clinical Pharmacist’(CP) in all the government medical colleges and major hospitals.

She said once the scope of job opportunities is established, the anxiety of the students can be eradicated. The post of CP should be kept back for the Pharm D graduates alone and no graduate from other streams should be recruited to fill such vacancies. Likewise, the PCI should restrict in giving approvals to colleges which do not have own hospitals or clinical infrastructure facilities. According to the principal, certain colleges are signing MoU with hospitals which are far away from the colleges and it often creates hardships for the students to reach there on time.

Dr Sathish Bhise, a professor of pharmacy from Mumbai says that PCI has to establish accreditation standards for the course in India as official recognition for Indian Pharm D is required from ACPE in USA. He further said several colleges are starting the course, but very few of them have adequate clinical infrastructure facilities.

Dr  S S Manwatkar, principal of a pharmacy college in Maharashtra expresses concern over AICTE’s decision in increasing the in-take of M Pharm seats all over India when there is rising unemployment for pharmacy graduates and Pharm D holders. He also opined that the pharma industry should stop recruiting science graduates, rather they should select Pharm D and M Pharm holders for their jobs.

Prof Roop Krishen Khar, principal of B S Anangpuria Institute of Pharmacy, Faridabad said that the PCI has to take some concrete measures for chances of placements for Pharm D holders in the healthcare delivery system in government services and other sectors like defence, railways, airlines, etc.

Echoing the opinions of others in the case of job opportunities in government sector, Dr E Vigneshwaran, HOD of the Department of Pharmacy Practice at Raghavendra Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (RIPER) in Anantapur in Andhra Pradesh said that PCI should increase the time duration for project work during the 5th year programme of Pharm D. He said opportunities should be made for the Pharm D students to visit various companies like CROs and pharmacovigilance centres for carrying out their project work similar to M Pharm students.