Extended role
Readership survey

Extended role

It has been a good week for pharmacists interested in extending their roles. First came the publication of the National Service Framework for Older People (see p415). This was rushed out by the Government on Tuesday in an ill-conceived attempt to downplay a damning report into the quality of care offered to older patients in acute hospitals from the Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee — “Caring for older people: a nursing priority”. The ploy backfired because relatively little attention was given to the NSF in the national papers on Wednesday. This was a pity for pharmacists, in particular because there is plenty of scope for them to be involved in improving the care of elderly people.

A separate document within the NSF is devoted to medicines. This is significant because it was compiled by a group of pharmacists under the guidance of Professor Alison Blenkinsopp of the department of medicines management, Keele university. It gives pharmacists huge scope, whether they are based in primary or secondary care, to offer prescribing support, drug monitoring and review, and any other aspect of medicines management in which they are particularly interested.

The second piece of good news for community pharmacists is the launch of “Care at the chemist”, an initiative started in Merseyside which confirms that significant numbers of patients are happy to have minor ailments treated at a pharmacy rather than at a general practitioner's surgery. They often only make a doctor's appointment because they are entitled to free prescriptions. More details of this initiative can be found on page 413 and in related original papers here and here.

Back to Top

Readership survey

Readers of The Journal in Britain should check their waste paper baskets to ensure they have not inadvertently discarded a readership survey form that they are invited to complete this week. This survey will give all pharmacists the chance to tell the editorial staff about their reading habits — the sections of The Journal they like, those parts that they do not read, with plenty of opportunity to make other suggestions and improvements. Other readers, or those who cannot find the printed survey form, can access it on PJ Online (www.pharmj.com). The more readers who reply, the easier it will be for the editorial staff to determine the current interests of the profession and how well The Journal is reflecting them.

Back to Top