The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 268 No 7191 p431-434
30 March 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF* 70K

  The Profession
  Community pharmacy
  FP10 switching
  CPD
  Childhood vaccination
  Homoeopathy
  Drugs of abuse
  The Conference
  The Society
  The Journal

Letters to the Editor

The Profession

Pharmacy is key to health care

From Mr M. J. Stephens, MRPharmS

Although I have some sympathy with Sara Barrow's concerns (PJ, 16 March, p363), I would encourage her and others in the profession to feel a little more confident about pharmacy's future.

Mrs Barrow is right: "allied health professional" is a term that does not include pharmacists. Neither does it include health care scientists. However, not being included in the AHP group does not mean that pharmacists are not crucial to the NHS Plan.

"Pharmacy in the future" is a key document, setting out the value of a patient-focused pharmacy profession. The National Service Framework for Older People has a significant section on medicines and the role the pharmacist can have. "A spoonful of sugar" from the Audit Commission, alongside its local audit work, makes it clear that pharmacy services, and pharmacists, are essential if we are to have a high quality, safe NHS meeting, patients' needs cost-effectively. Pharmacist prescribing and the medicines management collaboratives are further examples of pharmacy gaining acknowledgement and investment.

There are irritations: why no 2.5 per cent allowance for pharmacists in the South East? Why has the leadership centre not yet addressed pharmacy? But do not feel neglected and let us not think of ourselves as victims. Pharmacy is key to health care; let us talk that up locally and nationally, celebrating the successes as they arrive.

Martin Stephens
Romsey, Hampshire

Over-qualified just to push pills

From Ms S. D. Patel, MRPharmS

Recently one of my health care assistants came to me with a classic case of conjunctivitis, which would require treatment with fusidic acid/chloramphenicol. Despite being surrounded by the stuff, I had to send my colleague to a local National Health Service walk-in centre, to be seen by a nurse. Just 20 minutes later she returned, clutching a bottle of chloramphenicol. What a laugh! Not only am I not deemed competent enough to make a decision on the initial supply but even my simple role of "pill pusher" has been taken away from me. I did offer some counselling on how to administer the drops, because we are always told we are in a unique position to offer advice on medicine use — but, guess what, this had already been done!

I understand the need for pharmacists to demonstrate competency and to ensure that they strive for continuous improvement. But surely we must be in a position to deliver all this knowledge and the unpalatable reality for the majority of pharmacists is that we are still glorified pill pushers. Indeed, my preregistration trainee will not be allowed to do what this nurse did after five years of studying pharmacy and medicines.

Why do we continually justify ourselves so much for so little? We would do well to learn from our nursing colleagues, who have undertaken important continuing professional development of their own, aggressively and effectively placing themselves as front runners of primary care. As health care changes, nursing prescribers are doing what we are qualified to do from the first day of registration. As pharmacy technicians take over the checking role, "counselling" is not enough to justify our expense. We should be asking for more now before it is too late.

Sittal D. Patel
London SE19

Next Topic (Community pharmacy)
Send your letter to The Editor