The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7179 p881-884
22-29 December 2001

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

  Remuneration
  The Profession
  The Council
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

The Profession

What happened to Pharmacy in a New Age?

From Mr D. L. Coleman, FRPharmS

In 1991 we celebrated 150 years of our profession under the banner of "150 years of serving the public". Ten years later we seem to in danger of denying the heritage of that 150 years and being confused about exactly who we serve. History is what made us what we are and, in the same way, what we are today is the base from which we can embrace the future.

A healthy future can best be achieved by a strong present; yet current trends seem to be acting in a direction opposite to the future that we have mapped out (and which the Government has rushed to endorse ) in our Pharmacy in a New Age documents. We talk about medicines management and at the same time the minister responsible is unable to accept that an increase of nearly 50 per cent in prescriptions dispensed over the past decade requires extra time and resources.

Some of your correspondents refer to the danger of closure of many pharmacies. Equally concerning, however seems to me to be the dumbing down of the profession created by the philosophy of processing as many prescriptions in as short a time as possible. A decade ago we were urging pharmacists to "come out of the dispensary" and talk to patients, but the increased workload coupled with increased paperwork and learning requirements is having just the opposite effect. Patient compliance is helped by familiarity with product presentation and information, but now, in order to meet Drug Tariff prices and discount clawback, it is accepted that it is necessary to use whatever pill or generic is available at the lowest price. Is that really in the best interest of the patient?

Many pharmacies operate long hours. As a result it is not possible for the patient to see the same pharmacist each time. But should we accept a situation where it might be a different pharmacist every time? Sometimes I think we give the impression that the pharmacist who stays in one pharmacy for many years is somehow less motivated and less worthy of reward than one who moves on to provide advice to primary care trusts, or goes into management or training. Can this be right?

Is there a danger perhaps that our commitment to Pharmacy in a New Age has caused us to ignore the problems and trends facing pharmacy today?

Is there a connection between the growth of a multiplicity of groups such as pharmacy development groups and the apparent reduction in local Royal Pharmaceutical Society branch activity?

David Coleman
North Walsham, Norfolk

Back to Top

Previous Topic (Remuneration)
Next Topic (The Council)
Send your letter to The Editor