The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7316 p345
11 September 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 80K, Acrobat Reader

· Personal control
· Shipman
· Animal testing
· Charter
· Statins
· Cholesterol testing
· Media scrutiny
· Retention fee
· Enhanced services

Letters to the Editor

Personal control

Insult to pharmacy staff

From Mr L. David, MRPharmS

It is clear that if a pharmacist is not on the premises then no GSL medicine can be sold. On the other hand, most GSL medicines are available in corner shops, petrol stations and car boot sales all over the country. This is an insult to well-trained pharmacy staff and brings the law into disrepute. The Society should be using its resources to get this anomaly corrected instead of issuing diktats and policing hard-pressed pharmacists.

Will supermarkets programme their check-outs so that the pharmacist can stop any GSL sale? Feasible? Yes. Practical? I doubt it!

Leo David
Heston, Middlesex

Qualifications being rubbished

From Mrs D. Kong

I read the Law and Ethics Bulletin clarifying personal control, particularly the part about sale of general sales list medicines (PJ, 28 August, p298), with incredulity. In fact, our pharmacy is open six days a week and is only without a pharmacist for one hour, if that, per week. Nevertheless, I wish to voice my indignation.

I am not a pharmacist but am married to and in business partnership with one. We have owned and run our independent pharmacy for over 25 years and, although my training was not originally in pharmacy, I have made it my job to do every bit of training possible — short of a pharmacy degree. I became a qualified medicines counter assistant at the first opportunity and am now a qualified dispensing technician. In recent years I have been involved with training our staff all, of whom are required to do the National Pharmaceutical Association’s accredited course. And training continues after the course is completed.

We are not in the least unusual. All medicine counter assistants in all UK pharmacies are required to be trained and this country has a great body of assistants who are qualified, knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with customers. We are required by law to observe the pharmacy’s protocols and trained to understand the reasons behind them. I wish to emphasise that the most important lesson I have learnt is to know when to refer. My training has taught me as much about the limits of my capabilities as about the scope of them. And now it appears that our time, training and experience are all going to waste. Worse still, our efforts and qualifications are being rubbished by the very body to whom pharmacists pay annual fees to look after the profession.

Qualified medicines counter assistants, dispensary assistants and dispensing technicians have less freedom to sell a 16-pack of paracetamol than petrol station attendants, newsagents and the like. If the Society really believes that the public are being put at risk by the sale of medicines without a pharmacist present, it should have the courage to take things to their logical conclusion and move to ban the sale of GSL medicines from any business other than a pharmacy. I understand the concern for public safety, but the Society is pointing at the wrong target.

I have followed, with interest, the efforts by the NHS to provide the public with “seamless care”. Pharmacists are being encouraged to take on more tasks, such as cholesterol testing and home visits. Pharmacy technicians are being given the opportunity to become checking technicians to free up pharmacist time. And yet, moving down the scale, qualified counter assistants are being stripped of their responsibility of selling GSL medicines, even though they are well-equipped to do so and are following the guidelines of their training. The bulletin concluded “if the pharmacist has to leave the premises, the safest option may be to close the pharmacy premises”. People will not be interested in “safety”, nor will they see the sense of it. People want quick, available expertise, and they will not thank the profession for sending them to a grocery for their 16 paracetamol. They would think it ridiculous.

Deborah A. Kong
Edinburgh

Referral to the local garage?

From Mr P. Gamblin, MRPharmS

With regard to the recent coverage of GSL medicines sold from pharmacies and the Society’s subsequent clarification, is the Society really advocating the referral of patients requiring GSL medicines to the nearby convenience store, garage or supermarket on the rare occasions that a pharmacist is not present in the pharmacy (ie, at lunch, doing an ethical home visit or delivering oxygen)? What price our highly trained technicians and counter assistants! Should the Society be earning their proposed extra fees in resolving this anomaly?

Peter Gamblin
Gosport, Hampshire

Clarification on personal control

From Mr P. Shah, MRPharmS

In light of the Law and Ethics Bulletin clarifying personal control (PJ, 28 August, p298), in my opinion it would be preferable, and safer, if GSL medicines were sold in a registered pharmacy — even in the absence of a pharmacist. At least trained medicines counter assistants can offer advice and intervene if necessary, according to a medicines sale protocol. Would it not seem illogical to members of the public that they could not buy a GSL medicine in a pharmacy but could walk a few steps down the road and purchase the same medicine in a supermarket or at a petrol station?

Does the advice offered not contradict the government’s policy of easier, more convenient and safer medicines availability? Will this advice also not further impede implementation of the new contract? I seek clarification on whether supermarkets with registered pharmacies will no longer be able to sell GSL medicines in the absence of a pharmacist, particularly due to the fact that many of them trade 24 hours and also have medicines merchandised throughout their shop.

Paresh Shah
London, N12

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Shipman)