The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7219 p523
12 October 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF 60K

  Community pharmacy
  Prescriptions
  Patient packs
  Workforce census
  CHF
  Modernisation
  Antibiotics
  Sociology
  The Journal

Letters to the Editor

Prescriptions

ETP must offer benefits to patients

From Mr M. Strange

In the report entitled "Driver for ETP may be cost savings rather than patient convenience" (PJ, 28 September, p455), Ian Shepherd states that only two of the electronic transmission of prescriptions (ETP) pilots currently taking place offer patients freedom to choose their pharmacy up to the point of dispensing and that the others "required selection of the pharmacy before or as the prescription was written". He also observes that the technology used should not "fundamentally force change to the patient's behaviour", and that patients should not be locked into a particular mechanism.

Any analysis of the current processes shows that the basic mechanism, where a prescription is printed, given to the patient, taken by the patient to the pharmacy of their choice, and dispensed, has long been supplemented by "prescription collection services". A patient requests that their repeat prescriptions are routinely printed and supplied to the pharmacy of their choice, where they are dispensed and held for the patient to collect. No one suggests that this is patient registration, yet Mr Shepherd raises the prospect that patient registration is integral to some ETP models.

Mr Shepherd seeks to defend patient choice, yet ignores these collection services, that are increasingly popular because they offer benefits to all concerned, including patients. Indeed it is our position that the TransScript model seeks to increase patient choice by removing some of the logistical restrictions of the current collection services, which are inevitably limited by how far pharmacists/pharmacy staff can travel to collect prescriptions. Our approach will allow patients to have their prescriptions sent to any pharmacy convenient to their home, place of work, etc.

Some ETP models continue to require the printing of a token containing the prescription details, which has to be taken by the patient from the general practitioner to the pharmacy, and requires a transaction with a central database to post the prescription details electronically into the pharmacy system (details already available to the pharmacist on the token). We see no efficiency gains in that. At the same time, this will in itself impose changes on patients and indeed, merely lock them into an alternative mechanism.

Although we agree that ETP should not impose major changes on patients, it must offer them discernible benefits, which is why the TransScript model seeks to reduce the number of visits patients make to their surgery and pharmacy, while extending current levels of choice regarding where their medicines are dispensed. Taking a paper token to the pharmacy and waiting (or leaving and returning later) while the pharmacist downloads and dispenses the prescription appears to offer no additional patient benefits.

Martin Strange
Operations Director
TransScript

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Community pharmacy)
Next Topic (Patient packs)