| · Community pharmacy
· CSM
· Canvassing
· Registration exam
· Law and ethics
Letters to the Editor
|
Community pharmacy
Six million visits to Britain’s pharmacies — mystery solved?
From Mr J. Ferguson, FRPharmS, and Mr R. Dickinson, FRPharmS
We are happy to identify ourselves as those who suggested that about
six million visits were made to Britain’s pharmacies, on average,
each working day (PJ, 17 April, p467). The figure was arrived at neither
by a scribble on the back of an envelope during a Council meeting, nor
by quick sums on the back of a cigarette packet in the Adams Room at
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s headquarters. Indeed, the Adams
Room did not even exist at the time because the estimate was made more
than 30 years ago, when the Society was still at Bloomsbury Square and
we were joint assistant secretaries of the Society.
It is important to recall the background. We were seeking to promote
community pharmacies as excellent centres for the provision of health
education information as it was then termed. We made the point to the
then Health Education Council and in the Society’s relevant policy
document, that almost all the locations at which health information leaflets
were distributed were places that people visited when they already considered
themselves to be unwell. In contrast, many people, perhaps a majority
at that time, visited community pharmacies when they were fit and that
was the time to try to interest them in advice that would keep them that
way. We were therefore thinking on the same lines as those put forward
now by Alison Blenkinsopp and were not seeking to estimate how many people
visited pharmacies for health-related reasons, as did Sue Ambler.
We did not have the complication raised by John Marriott, because there
were no in-store supermarket pharmacies and Boots was on its own as a
major multiple and did not sell sandwiches, as far as we can recall.
The sums were done using published information. We knew the number of
prescription forms presented for dispensing during 12 months, calculated
the average per working day and then estimated, admittedly from a small
sample of Council members’ pharmacies, the proportion of people
who waited while their prescriptions were dispensed and the proportion
who called back. From that, we estimated the number of visits made to
pharmacies, associated with prescriptions. Two visits to deposit a prescription
and collect a dispensed medicine, counted quite correctly in our view
as two possible exposures to health promotion activity.
For other customers in the private community pharmacy sector, data provided
by A. C. Nielsen, with which the Society had good links at that time,
was used. Boots did not provide data to Nielsen for the pharmacy sector
survey. We used the figure from its last published annual report for
retail sales and divided that by the figure for the average sale per
customer. From these data, we estimated the total number of visits for
purchases per working day. Of course, there was bound to be some duplication
because some people who came to have prescriptions dispensed would also
make a purchase. On the other hand, some visit a pharmacy and neither
buy anything nor have a prescription dispensed, so there is a balancing
factor.
It is important to recognise that we sought to estimate the number of
visits, not visitors as suggested in the PJ article. And to support the
case we were making to the Health Education Council, the Department of
Health and all other interested parties, we were interested in the total
number of visits and not only those seeking professional services. We
never claimed that the figure was precise but we consider it was a good
estimate and we think Dr Ambler is probably right when she suggests that
the figure of six million visits per day is on the low side today, if
all visits are counted. Perhaps she should seek to update the estimate,
rather than dismissing it as “rubbish”.
Our recollection is that the value of the role of the community pharmacy
in the provision of health information leaflets was eventually demonstrated
when the Family Planning Association reported that it had received its
highest ever response when one of its leaflets was displayed in pharmacies.
Subsequently the Government announced that it was making available funding — our
recollection is that it was double the sum requested by the Society — to
support the Pharmacy Healthcare Scheme. There has, of course, been a
major expansion in the health promotion activities of community pharmacists
since then.
John Ferguson
Haywards Heath,
West Sussex
Raymond Dickinson
Farnham,
Surrey
Six million visits to Britain’s pharmacies — I know the origin!
From Mr J. D. Thomas, MRPharmS
In 1981, the newly appointed director of the National Pharmaceutical
Association, Tim Astill, initiated an NPA advertising campaign.
Being the only board member to serve continuously on the advertising
subcommittee from 1981–1998, from my personal records, the services
of a marketing consultancy agency, now defunct, were used to investigate
the perceptions and use of the nation’s community pharmacies. The
extensive research that it undertook produced the six million visitors
a day figure.
A national roadshow was undertaken to communicate this campaign to community
pharmacy and to pharmacists. The “Ask your pharmacist” strapline
was the leading part of this £0.5m annual campaign, which was funded
by all sectors of community pharmacy.
For the record, this advertising campaign is the only occasion that I
can recall where all sectors of community pharmacy were seen to work
together and in unison. Even the then largest multiple contributed on
an equal financial basis for the first five years.
David Thomas
Wolverhampton,
West Midlands
Six million visitors a day — fact or folklore?
From Ms V. Wray
I was highly amused to see your leader (PJ, 17 April, p462) and article (p467) about the six million visitors figure, and from my experience,
I suggest that it is probably folklore rather than fact.
However amusing and challenging an article it may be, is it really wise
to be raising the question at this sensitive stage of the pharmacy contract
negotiations? Or at a time when the profession is already defending its
expertise? (ie, the Which? report — “Are pharmacists up to
the new challenges?”).
Suppose you find that it is a totally fictitious number — what
then? Will the profession not be shooting itself in the foot? Maybe not
exactly a clever PR move.
Veronica Wray
Former Head of Public Affairs
National Pharmaceutical Association
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal