|
· St John's wort
· Community pharmacy
· The register
· Veterinary pharmacy
Letters to the Editor
|
Veterinary pharmacy
Amount of additional training underestimated
From Professor A. R. Michell, MRCVS
The unique selling point of any health care profession is the competence
conferred by its training and the benefits which this brings to patients.
There is undoubtedly a Government wish to see an extension of the involvement
of pharmacists in the supply of veterinary medicines. This extension has
to be based on relevant competence: that, after all, is the reason that
a pharmacist has to be present when human prescriptions are dispensed.
Unfortunately the 13 March issue of the PJ strengthens my misgivings that
some of the rediscovered enthusiasm for veterinary pharmacy has underestimated
the amount of additional training required for existing pharmacists, few
of whom have the relevant knowledge of companion animals. Moreover, if
community pharmacists are to play a similar role in pet medicine as in
human medicine, which they potentially could with appropriate training,
that training has to be part of the core course, not an optional extra.
Unfortunately, community pharmacists are already busy and the dispensing
load is getting intolerable. I am not reassured to read (p322) that “an
animal section introduced into the business may not need to involve the
pharmacist too much — staff who have pets and are interested can
handle much of the new work”. Would we rely on a garage staffed by
DIY car owners, however enthusiastic?
The existing shortage of pharmacists raises the question whether it would
be more cost-effective to give supplementary training in pharmacy to veterinary
nurses, already skilled and experienced in companion animal medicine, many
of them already responsible for drug purchasing, and a growing number who
are university graduates.
The PJ (13 March) includes the following comments: “Pharmacists
have a basic training suitable for upgrading to the level of competence
required” (p320),
ie, their existing training does not make them sufficiently competent. “Only
about 1,500 pharmacists are currently active in veterinary pharmacy” (p321). “The
diploma in veterinary pharmacy would be a sound foundation” (p322).
The article (p327)
says that two modules arc dedicated to companion animals and a third to
veterinary pharmacy; the time needed per module is roughly
100 hours.
So even without the livestock module, the requisite “boning up” to
achieve competence would be around 200 to 300 hours. Yet on p322, pharmacists
are assured that “they could incorporate a range of pet medicines
within their premises and could start trading within two or three weeks”.
Assuming the additional study required for competence, ie, 200 to 300 hours,
to accomplish this in two weeks would mean around 14–21 hours of
study per day, none of which requires residential study. If it simply means
selling the medicines without the relevant competence it espouses a dangerous
principle, one readily extended to human medicines in supermarkets and
elsewhere to alleviate that shortage of pharmacists.
Bob Michell
Newmarket, Suffolk |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal