The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 266 No 7154 p888-891
June 30, 2001

  Medicines promotions
  Primary care pharmacy
  Diabetes
  Veterinary medicines
  Mutual recognition
  Code of Ethics
  Checking technicians
  Disillusioned youth
  Martindale

Checking technicians (3 letters)

A displeasing wake-up call

From Mr S. W. Richardson, MRPharmS

I would like to challenge John Bannister’s wake-up call (PJ, June 16, p819). I find it difficult to believe that 80 per cent of pharmacists who do not own their own businesses will be rendered unemployed by checking technicians.

I fail to understand the analogy used by Mr Bannister. When one goes to court, one does indeed employ a solicitor, not a clerk; when one visits a doctor’s consulting room, one does indeed expect a doctor and not a receptionist. So, surely, “when one goes to a pharmacy to consult” one is more likely to be able to do so if the pharmacist is more accessible and free from tasks that could be delegated to others.

Mr Bannister suggests that “we are ‘on station’ to provide our many consultational skills and knowledge, particularly at the point when a prescription is checked. Does he only use these skills at this very late stage of the dispensing process? Can these skills not be used at the initial receipt of a prescription or while the patient is waiting for his or her medicine?

Mr Bannister seems to believe that the current system is ideal. Is it really ideal to have a pharmacist hidden behind a checking bench providing a dispensing service to the patient rather than taking a holistic approach to the pharmaceutical care of the patient?

I am surprised that with recent letters such as those of Ian Wood (PJ, May 12, p654) and Ben Hewitt (PJ, May 26, p719), there are still pharmacists resistant to the evolution of pharmacy. Contrary to their views, I am more than satisfied with my experiences as a pharmacist to date. I too have been qualified for just under a year and I am encouraged by the future of pharmacy and its proposed developments. I am looking forward to being a proactive exponent of these changes. I have no fear of the “checking technician” because I can see the opportunity that this will lend to the profession to extend its role.

Stuart Richardson
Resident Pharmacist
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital,
London

Pharmacists over-qualified to check dispensing

From Mr P. Walton, MRPharmS

I understand the position taken by John Bannister on checking technicians (PJ, June 16, p819) but I look at it the other way around. Pharmacists are vastly over-qualified to be checking the physical process of dispensing. We should be applying our wealth of knowledge and experience to ensure that the process operated by others is accurate and efficient. This will give us plenty of time to perform other tasks. According to the British Medical Association, there are 10,000 more general practitioners needed. GPs are spending far too much time requesting repeat prescriptions, dealing with minor ailments, fronting health promotion campaigns and trying to ensure patient compliance with their instructions. From my perspective these are the jobs that pharmacists are ideally trained to do. There will never be enough people with the educational qualifications to make up the shortfall in GP numbers. The Government must be encouraged to look at pharmacists in order to fulfil its obligations with respect to delivering health care. The process has already started in the many pilot schemes that exist. Let us look at the future prospects for pharmacists confident that we can change health care delivery for the good of patients, and enhance our status as health care professionals at the same time.

Philip Walton
Manchester

Profoundly short-sighted view

From Mr S. P. Rubery, MRPharmS

In these days when pharmacists are being asked to take on wider roles in response to “Pharmacy in the Future”, to take the view, as John Bannister does (PJ, June 16, p819), that the pharmacist must personally check all dispensed medicines and that the demise of this function will lead to the demise of the profession is profoundly short sighted.

The pharmacist will still be required to check the “clinical” aspects of all prescriptions, but suitably trained technicians possess the skills and abilities to carry out dispensing accuracy checks at least as well as pharmacists.

Rather than marking the end of pharmacists, technician checking will enable them to develop their role as integral members of the health care team.

Stephen Rubery
Ilford, Essex

Back to Top

Previous Topic (Code of Ethics)
Next Topic (Disillusioned youth)
Send your letter to The Editor