Personal control
Pedantry of outdated legislation
From Mr C. Morris, MRPharmS
Yet again I am staggered at the pure inanity of legislation regarding
pharmacy supervision. The letters in The Journal of 11 September saying
that surely the counter assistants’ training must count for something
when it comes to selling GSL medicines without the presence of a pharmacist
must be all correct. This is just common sense. After all, how much training
does the work experience lad get in your local convenience store.
The answer from Lynsey
Balmer (ibid, p345) highlights the pedantry of
the outdated legislation: when I work at a local supermarket pharmacy
and I go for lunch we cannot sell 16 aspirin from aisle 4 (a registered
pharmacy) but the ones in aisle 5 are fine. Come on! How about doing
the profession some good for the 25 per cent increase in payments that
is now required.
Not only is our profession the lowest paid, it must appear to the public
to be the most pedantic.
Chris Morris
Newquay, Cornwall
If it ain’t broke ...
From Mr H. Littler, MRPharmS
Recent letters on personal control have done nothing to clarify the
matter; indeed, quite the reverse.
Briefly, and without going into technicalities, the position is that
a person (which term includes a corporate body) lawfully conducting a
retail pharmacy business may sell or supply in circumstances corresponding
to retail sale medicinal products not on a General Sale List (pharmacy
medicines and most dispensed medicines) from registered premises subject
to certain conditions.
One of those conditions is that the business, so far as concerns the
retail sale of medicinal products (whether they are on a General Sale
List or not), or the supply of such products in circumstances corresponding
to retail sale, is under the personal control of a registered pharmacist.
It follows from this that if the condition of personal control is not
observed sales of pharmacy medicines or supplies of dispensed medicines
from the premises would be unlawful and any prosecution resulting from
an allegation that the business was being carried on other than under
the personal control of a registered pharmacist would be based on those
unlawful sales.
Sales of GSL medicines during short absences of a pharmacist are not
a problem. It is the business which must be under the personal control
of a pharmacist and not individual sales of GSL medicines. Just how long
the pharmacist could be absent without breaching the condition regarding
personal control is a matter for the courts.
To those who advocate removal of the personal control condition I would
put the following question. Would you be content for a registered pharmacy
business to
be carried on in circumstances where:
· The title “pharmacy” was prominently displayed at the
premises?
· There was no pharmacist in full-time control?
· The staff were encouraged to sell GSL medicines in the absence of a
pharmacist?
· The staff were instructed to contact a pharmacist working at nearby
premises, possibly a busy pharmacy, in the event of a request for the
supply of a pharmacy medicine of for a prescription to be dispensed when,
in response to such a request, the pharmacist attended only long enough
to supervise the supply or supplies prescription turnover was low?
Perhaps two old sayings would have some relevance: “when the cat’s
away, the mice will play” and “if it ain’t broke, don’t
fix it”.
Henry Littler
Wigan
Rectify this ridiculous position!
From Mr J. C. Porteous, MRPharmS
I have read the recent correspondence in The Pharmaceutical Journal and the
clarification in the Law and
Ethics Bulletin (PJ, 28 August, p298) with both
dismay and incredulity. It appears that the highly trained counter staff and
qualified dispensers who are available in community pharmacies are not allowed
to sell GSL products in the absence of a pharmacist, no matter how temporary.
This does not mean GSL medicines, but products. Our intelligent staff are
not to be trusted with the sale of a tube of E45 cream.
I understand that the relevant legislation dates from 1968. How is it possible
that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has done nothing to rectify this ridiculous
position? The Society decided that community pharmacy’s counter assistants
must undertake a prescribed training course then left them with less ability
to sell GSL products than any other retail outlet.
What is the Society going to do about it? How do we get the act amended? Which
among our august representative bodies will champion our cause?
Community pharmacies could register part of their premises only (this is what
the supermarkets do). I think, however, that this should be a temporary measure.
This law is not working as intended and must be changed.
J. C. Porteous
Studley,
Warwickshire
Legal position should be changed
From Ms A. M. Baker, MRPharmS
When Lynsey Balmer replied to Paresh
Shah’s query about general
sale list medicines and their availability from different types of premises
(PJ, 11 September, p345), she simply restated the legal position.
I think many of us are aware of the legal position and are not seeking
clarification of it, but seeking to understand the reasoning behind it.
It appears to me, and I think to your other correspondents (Leo David,
Deborah Kong and Peter Gamblin), to be a strange legal position.
I would like to ask the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to lobby the Government
in order that this legal position be changed.
If such lobbying is already taking place,then perhaps someone from the
Society would be able to confirm that our concerns are being addressed.
If not, perhaps someone would kindly raise the issue at a meeting of
the Society's Council.
Alison Baker
Dumfries
Crass legislation
From Mrs J. M. Wood, MRPharmS
In response to the letters on the subject of sale of general sale list
medicines, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society yet again responds merely
by quoting the legislation as it currently stands but fails to express
a view. Is it not it time the Society started working for the members
and lobbying for such crass legislation to be changed? Too often the
Society hides behind poor legislation to justify inaction. How can we
expect the public to respect us when they apparently get better service
from a supermarket check-out assistant than from a registered pharmacy?
Julia Wood
Leeds
Non-registered areas
From Mr M. G. J. Cooper, MRPharmS
Lynsey Balmer states that GSL medicines can be sold from non-pharmacy
premises (PJ, 11 September, p345). Therefore, if supermarkets can sell
GSL medicines from non-registered areas of their premises, why cannot
every pharmacy do the same and designate part of its premises non-registered
with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society?
M. G. J. Cooper
Bishop’s Stortford,
Hertfordshire
A few simple rules
From Mr S. Vohra, MRPharmS
Since I wrote my
first letter on the sale of GSL medicines (PJ, 28 August,
p286), there has been much debate and consternation expressed but no
solutions seem to have been proposed on how pharmacists should deal with
the issue. I would like to recommend a course of action. We should all
follow a few simple rules:
1. Always recommend a P medicine and never a GSL one. This will ensure
we are not indirectly aiding GSL sales in non-pharmacy outlets — if
they can pick the product you recommended off the shelf elsewhere why
bother coming to you again?
2. Stay clear of those branded P medicines that have prominent, well-advertised
GSL alternatives. This should prevent customers from selecting the same
brand GSL medicines in non-pharmacy outlets.
3. Follow the example of Lloydspharmacy and bring your P medicines out
onto the shop floor displayed behind transparent plastic shields. This
allows customers greater access and choice in selecting P medicines.
4. Cut down on your GSL range and stock brands that the supermarkets
do not keep.
Pharmacists should remember that P medicines are always advertised as
being “stronger” than GSL medicines. The above steps, therefore,
should ensure that this message is emphasised and the importance of pharmacists
and pharmacies in medicine sales recognised.
Samir Vohra
Preston, Lancashire
Absurd anomaly
From Mr D. J. Coleman, MRPharmS
It was with dismay that I read the Law
and Ethics Bulletin (PJ, 28 August,
p298) and the official
response to letters in the PJ (11 September, p345)
on the subject of general sale list sales.
When a clearly absurd situation is revealed (that is that the regulations
appear to prohibit a trained medicines counter assistant from selling
GSL medicines in the absence of a pharmacist yet allows staff at the
grocery store checkout to sell them) then what is needed, if confidence
in the professional role of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is to be
maintained, is to know what steps are being taken to rectify this absurd
anomaly in the regulations. To point out further anomalies, ie, that
in a supermarket situation, even with an in-store pharmacy only the pharmacy
area is registered thus allowing untrained staff to sell GSL medicines
just makes the situation more ridiculous.
This reduces the credibility of the profession and undermines the respect
and confidence of the public in GSL medicines. A meeting with pharmacy
superintendents of the major multiples, the National Pharmaceutical Association
and patient representatives might be a start. There is an issue of public
safety. There is also a need for pharmacists to be able to take some
sort of a break (if only for 10 minutes) in a 10-hour day without closing
the pharmacy down.
David Coleman
North Walsham, Norfolk
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal