| · Veterinary pharmacy
· Indemnity insurance
· Methadone
· Excipients
· Self-prescribing
· Pharmacist prescribing
· Sugar in medicines
· NMS
Letters to the Editor
|
Veterinary pharmacy
Pharmacy is an accessible, underused resource
From Mr P. T. Jobson, MRPharmS
I agree with Bob Michell (PJ, 27 March, p382) that veterinary pharmacy
should be part of the core pharmacy undergraduate course, perhaps in
the sense that the specific skills of pharmacists are recognised as having
an important role in veterinary medicine and the undergraduate course
should keep pace with such developments.
However, his assumptions ignore relevant parts of the existing syllabus
that do provide pharmacists with the necessary competencies to provide
additional advice to animal owners that they would not otherwise receive
from pet shop or supermarket staff or, indeed, from veterinary surgeons,
who would be engaged in diagnosis and treatment work or would be otherwise
inaccessible to a casual purchaser.
I am sure that medicines counter assistants and dispensing technicians
would not liken themselves to DIY car owners operating a garage. The
point being made in the article (PJ, March 13, p321) clearly refers to
the pharmacist-supervised delegation that is essential in all professional
practices, including veterinary practices. However, the suggestion that
veterinary nurses would be more competent to advise on the relative benefits
of the use of one pharmaceutical product over another, than would a pharmacist
whose five-year education has revolved around pharmaceuticals, is somewhat
unrealistic. In addition, the inaccessible nature of veterinary practices
has led to consumers choosing to seek animal medicines from retail outlets.
The articles in The Journal of 13 March make reference to the Government-led
legislation to encourage greater availability of veterinary medicines
through pharmacies and the desire within the pharmacy profession to augment
the existing pharmacy category. One of the criticisms that has been levelled
at the profession from those who would seek to have a wider range of
medicines distributed by non-graduate merchants is that pharmacists are
not interested in this market. However, 1,500 pharmacies represents nearly
12 per cent of UK pharmacies in a non-exclusive market for pharmacy,
and is therefore impressive under the circumstances. Every pharmacy has
the potential to become involved using the existing undergraduate training
of their pharmacists and the existing range of pharmacy, pharmaceutical
merchant list and general sale list medicines. Thereby would the profession
demonstrate to manufacturers the capability to add value to the sale
of their products and expand the market to the benefit of animal owners,
animal welfare and all those involved in the market, including veterinary
surgeons. This would strengthen the argument for a wider pharmacy classification
of veterinary medicines.
There is a manpower shortage in many professions requiring the controlled
and supervised use of para-professionals. Pharmacists have been recognised
as an accessible, underused resource, not only in human health, but also
in veterinary medicine by virtue of their understanding of drug use,
accepting that there are important differences between human and veterinary
use. Clearly there are training and competence issues (as there are in
all professions) and the opportunities are there for pharmacists to exploit
in order to satisfy their obligation to demonstrate competence in areas
in which they practise. But for the veterinary profession to argue that
only its members should distribute veterinary medicines would be viewed
by the Government as clear protectionism.
Phil Jobson
Longtown,
Cumbria
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal