From Mr E. O. Opaleke, MRPharmS
SIR,—Our profession now has a breath of fresh air with the Government announcement of the NHS Plan for England. Following detailed examination of the plan by Professor Chapman (PJ, October 21, p615) and subsequent communications from other correspondents -Goodyer et al (PJ, October 28, p650), McCoig (PJ, November 4, p680) and Temple et al (PJ, November 11, p719), I feel compelled to comment.
The aforementioned article and letters have indicated the need for action and development of service structures around the plan in general as it affects individual pharmacists. The plan, however, raises a number of questions that need to be addressed in anticipation of the detailed plan.
1. Who negotiates the new contract? (With the present system, pharmacy owners have established bodies to negotiate on their behalf. However, previous associations and representations may compromise the credibility of these bodies to act on behalf of individual pharmacists. Conversely, a "lone ranger" approach by pharmacists may not be very effective in securing the best possible terms of service.)
2. Will specific accreditation be required to carry out general or specific pharmaceutical care service? (Provision of service without appropriate accreditation will eventually cause problems with regards to consistency and quality of service. Also, there will be a need for quantification of work and spread of catchment areas so that individual pharmacists applying for contracts do not unnecessarily replicate services already being provided.)
3. Will individual pharmacists be allowed to keep stocks of products (including medicines) considered necessary for service provision, or will they have to rely on premises owners?
4. Will individual pharmacists be able to hold confidential records of their patients?
5. Can the individual pharmacist develop e-pharmacy services including retail sales and have access to NHS net?
The government may change, but policy changes may not be significant enough to change the plan as it affects pharmacy services because the principles seem right for a better and healthier nation.
It is undoubted that individuals and bodies corporate have invested a lot of money in providing present levels of service and I hope the Government will look favourably upon compensating pharmacy owners and other individuals who may incur losses. However, we must remember that what has to be done must be done, and the bottom line is that pharmacists must leave this crossroads sooner rather than later.
Overall, more patients will be better served by having individual pharmacists (contractor, employee or self employed) who have been appropriately trained to look after their pharmaceutical needs. I hope all pharmacists will think about why they chose the profession and align their thoughts on preserving the pharmacy professional image for patients, posterity and themselves.
Emmanuel Opaleke South Harrow, Middlesex