The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7152 p815-820
June 16, 2001

  RPM
  In-store pharmacies
  Pharmacy medicines
  Patient packs
  The Profession
  Future of pharmacy
  Coronary heart disease
  Influenza
  Checking technicians
  Dianette
  Paracetamol
  Monitored dosage systems
  Disillusioned youth
  Code of Ethics
  SGM
  Disposal of medicines
  Separate register
  Onlooker
  The Journal

Dianette

Problem solved?

From Mr J. A. McKerracher, MRPharmS

I would like to know why we have to count the number of prescription forms and not just the prescription items every month. It strikes me as a waste of time that would be better spent with patients.

I would also like to know why, every month, the Prescription Pricing Authority gets away with transferring prescriptions for Dianette from the contraceptive bundle to the paid bundle when our “overworked and underpaid” general practitioners forget to add the female symbol when prescribing for contraception.

I understood that one of the functions of the PPA was to help produce accurate statistics that are used in PACT data. How can the statistics be accurate when GPs are prescribing Dianette for contraception in the vast majority of cases, but the PPA produces statistics that must be telling a different story?

I believe the blame must fall on the manufacturer. It should be forced to produce two different packs. The problem of prescription switching for this product would then be solved at a stroke. Keep the name Dianette for contraception — after all the packs now have the female symbol on the outside of the pack — and give the pack for acne a new name. If a woman is using it for both conditions, then prescribe and dispense Dianette.

John McKerracher
Lincoln

Previous Topic (Checking technicians)
Next Topic (Paracetamol)
Send your letter to The Editor