Supervision, e-commerce and the election of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's President were among the topics covered by a panel discussion at the Young Pharmacists Group conference. The meeting, held in London on November 27 and 28 alongside the Pharmacy Live exhibition, also heard presentations on remuneration and providing new pharmaceutical services
The Young Pharmacists Group's "Question Time" panel generally felt that the debate about supervision and the final checking of dispensed prescriptions should be re-opened, but an audience vote revealed an interesting split in attitudes. |  ON THE PANEL: (left to right) Mrs Glover, Mr Simner, Mr Sharpe and Mr Patel |
Mr BARRY SIMNER (pharmacy general manager, Superdrug) said that he was all in favour of debate. For the sale of pharmacy medicines, more clarity was needed in the public mind about what pharmacists did and how they did it in relation to such sales. For dispensing, he felt that while pharmacists should have visibility of every prescription, ideally at the point at which it was ready to be handed out, at the end of the day pharmacists had to take responsibility for what was happening under their control.
Mr KIRIT PATEL (chairman, National Pharmaceutical Association) said that pharmacists were professionals and should not be bogged down by new rules and regulations on dispensing and supervision.
Mrs CHRISTINE GLOVER (President, Royal Pharmaceutical Society) said that she felt that the profession needed to have the debate. Her memory of the last time the issue was debated at length, 10 years ago, was of the then President (Professor Geoff Booth) saying that the greatest concern he had heard from pharmacists was that patients might be in danger from pharmacists who had abrogated their responsibilities. The Society's new draft Code of Ethics talked about responsibilities.
At this point an audience vote was held on the necessity for the pharmacist to have the final check on all dispensed prescriptions. In the main, this was rejected by pharmacists in the audience, but supported by pharmacy students and trainees.
This prompted the panel's fourth member, Mr DAVID SHARPE, to exclaim: "The final check, for God's sake - you have to give responsibility to [the staff], you have to use your discretion."
The panel was then asked to say if pharmacy was ready for e-commerce.
Mr PATEL said: "We are not ready. There is no clear guidance and there are regulatory and safety issues to be discussed."
Mr SIMNER said that the profession could not hold back the tide of e-commerce. It had to be seen to be moving with the times, but safeguards needed to be put in place. One of the advantages of e-commerce was that ordering products over the internet produced good audit trails and records of what was purchased and when.
Mr SHARPE said that if the profession suffered badly from the effects of e-commerce then "it will be our own fault, because we will not be providing the service which online providers say that they can".
The panel was then asked if all dispensing might be lost to e-commerce providers in 10 years, leaving pharmacists offering only professional services.
Mrs GLOVER said that a wider spectrum of options for patients to choose from was the likely outcome.
"The number of pharmacies may be different, but people will still need people to talk to so we will not lose pharmacy from the high street," she said.
The panel then went on to discuss the election of the Society's Council and President. Was direct election of the President by the membership the way forward?
Mr PATEL said that the whole election process needed looking at. A President who was answerable to the entire membership through election would have to be more visible to the electorate.
Mr SIMNER thought that the present election process had not done the profession too much harm. The President needed to be someone whom the Council thought would be a good figurehead, but this idea was difficult to get over to the membership. It was the whole election process for the Council rather than for the President alone which needed looking at, he felt.
The current President, Mrs GLOVER, said that many different skills were needed to fulfill the President's role. The members of Council, who saw each other regularly, were better placed to judge who could undertake this role.
"We have to look at how we can make sure that people are in a position to stand for Council and, eventually, be elected as President, particularly with the growing number of employee pharmacists."
Mr SHARPE felt that the method used for electing the President would not make any difference, the Council had made mistakes in the past, and the membership would undoubtedly do so as well. However, the odds were in favour of the Council making a better informed decision.
The panel also considered the effects which clinical governance might have on the profession.
Mrs GLOVER said that clinical governance was, in fact, something which pharmacists did every day, but were not aware of. What was missing from the process was the documentation of what was happening and how risk was managed in pharmacies. Clinical governance would improve the standards and practice in pharmacies.
Mr SIMNER thought that pharmacists would cope well with clinical governance, but he was concerned about the terminology being used and how it might be interpreted and the amount of time which might have to be devoted to complying with it.
Mr SHARPE also saw time management as a problem. Too many pharmacists spent too much time on "counting, pouring and licking", which should be delegated to suitably trained staff, rather than working on issue such as risk management and clinical governance. Most computer generated prescriptions could be safely dispensed by trained assistants.
Mr PATEL felt that training for technicians was important, but registration was not. The profession should do nothing to advance a group which would lead to a deskilling of pharmacists, he said.