Nominated contact sought in each pharmacy
An amended motion, calling for each community pharmacy to have a nominated local contact, ideally a pharmacist, to develop effective working relationships with other health professionals and the local community, was carried but without the support of the proposers.
Moving the original motion, which called for “a local nominated
pharmacist contact”, John Carr (South Staffordshire) said that
when pharmacies did not have a regular pharmacist it hindered collaboration
with primary care trusts, other health professionals and other local
pharmacists. Naming a regular contact would help to develop the credibility
of community pharmacy. From working with PCTs, he knew that GPs were
frustrated when they could not count on regularly talking to the same
pharmacist. He believed that the contact needed to be a pharmacist and
not another regular member of staff.
Stuart Eason (South Staffordshire), seconding, said that his fairly typical
suburban pharmacy was surrounded by other pharmacies and he simply did
not know who ran them.
Mike Burden (Leicestershire and Rutland) proposed an amendment to read “...
a nominated contact, ideally a pharmacist, ...”
The amendment having been seconded, Mr Carr said that it took some of
the point out of the original motion and he urged members not to vote
for it. The person concerned should be both local and a pharmacist.
Chris Barnes (British Pharmaceutical Students Association) agreed with
the amendment. Why should the contact not be a permanent senior member
of the dispensing staff?
The amendment was carried.
Catherine Leask (Central Lancashire) proposed a further amendment to
restore the word “local”. The contact needed to understand
the needs of the local community.
The amendment having been seconded, Mr Eason said that if the contact
could be someone other than a pharmacist then it could be manager of
the Asda supermarket. His branch had put the motion forward because it
believed that the reputation of the pharmacy profession was suffering.
Elly Wakeling (Bradford) thought that where the contact lived was immaterial.
What mattered was the ability to fulfil the job description in the second
part of the motion.
Mr Carr said that he was disappointed. The profession was talking about
the importance of developing local services, but the motion was now a
contractors’ motion, not a pharmacists’ motion any more.
The South Staffordshire representatives would abstain from voting.
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal