The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7151 p784-787
June 9, 2001

  Code of Ethics
  RPM
  Medicines promotion
  Parallel imports
  Patient packs
  Disillusioned youth
  Veterinary medicines
  Travel medicine
  Nurse prescribing
  Working conditions
  Mutual recognition
  Disinfection techniques

Veterinary medicines

Supervision or authorisation?

From Mr D. R. Evans, MRPharmS

Having contributed to the independent review of veterinary dispensing both on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and as an individual, I was delighted to read the summary and recommendations of Professor Sir John Marsh’s review (PJ, May 26, p700).

In the final report, the task force has, almost without exception, accepted the points raised by pharmacists and has recommended the following:

• Veterinary surgeons to issue prescriptions as a matter of course
• A review of the classification of medicines, leading to more P and PML products
• Greater involvement of pharmacists in animal health
• Greater use of generic human medicines in companion animal medicine

All these issues can only encourage more pharmacists to become involved in this rewarding but under-subscribed branch of the profession. All however is not as positive as it would initially seem. The report also recommends that as well as saddlers, pet stores be allowed to register to sell companion animal wormers. I have no problems with suitably trained pet store staff (or saddlers and merchants) selling certain restricted products, but I am quite alarmed by the differing supervisory requirements required when making these sales.

As a pharmacist, I am required to “supervise” the sales, ie, be in a position to intervene in the transaction if necessary. Saddlers and merchants do not work to this “supervision” requirement; they work under the term “authorise”. This allows a registered merchant or saddler to sign off any sale retrospectively, sometimes more than 24 hours after the event. In some cases this will mean a supply can take place in the absence of any trained staff.

It is time to look at this practice of “authorisation”. The Society should be actively campaigning to ensure that any individual supplying medicines, veterinary or otherwise, works to the higher standards of “supervision” legally required of pharmacists. It would be a shame, after being presented with the opportunities detailed in the report of the independent review, if the profession was not able competitively to deliver the service because the Society imposed more stringent requirements on its own members than it did on other veterinary medicines suppliers for which it had registration responsibilities.

David Evans
Director, Brian G. Spencer Ltd

Previous Topic (Disillusioned youth)
Next Topic (Travel medicine)
Send your letter to The Editor