| · Personal control
· Cholesterol testing
· Charitable donations
· Returned medicines
· Dispensing
· The profession
· The Society
· The Charter
· Retention fee
Letters to the Editor
|
Personal control
Can independent pharmacies be split?
From Mr B. Nathwani, MRPharmS
There have been a number of letters concerning what constitutes personal
control of a registered pharmacy. These graphically demonstrate the schism
that has developed within pharmacy.
Large supermarkets can designate a small corner to be a pharmacy, open maybe
12 hours a day, and the rest of the time they can sell 16 paracetamol tablets,
with alcohol, if so purchased by their customer. However a small independent
cannot even sell the 16 paracetamol if a pharmacist is not present.
The reply given by Lynsey
Balmer (PJ, 11 September, p345) is typical of the
waffle that comes from the ivory tower of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
headquarters. What practical solution is offered to Paresh
Shah (ibid) so that
he can have a lunch break by closing the dispensary and his staff can continue
to sell 16 paracetamol without recourse to him — just like they do in
many supermarkets? None!
The abject failure of the Society over many years to ensure that the average
small pharmacy is not disadvantaged is one of the reasons why so many take
the Society to be a toothless sabre rattler. Surely the simple solution is
to let small independents register the dispensary and the medicines counter
with P medicines as the registered part of the pharmacy and the rest with GSL
items as non-pharmacy.
Is this sectioning of a small pharmacy illegal and under what statute? Why
cannot this have been the advice given to Mr Shah by Ms Balmer?
This example of such a
striking disparity has over the past 20 years or so led to the concentration
of power in the multiples as smaller pharmacies have borne the brunt of the
pharmacy legislation burden.
Over that period the larger multiples with their highly paid lawyers have used
the pharmacy legislation to their advantage and now control the majority of
community pharmacies. This was predicted by many of us when the promised land
of contract limitation was negotiated
by our skilful Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee chairman David
Sharpe
in 1986.
Let us hope that the final nail in the coffin is not currently being negotiated
by the PSNC with the current new contract.
Bharat Nathwani
Pinner, Middlesex
What criteria define a registered area?
From Mr U. A. Patel, MRPharmS
The reply by Lynsey
Balmer (PJ, 11September, p345) is interesting. Obviously
only a small part of the premises of a supermarket is a registered pharmacy.
What criteria are used to define the registered area? On those criteria
could all “chemists” register only part of the shop as a
pharmacy and then trade as supermarkets?
The common sense resolution is either that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
gets this legal anomaly corrected or not enforce this ridiculous law.
I think the Council should seriously address this issue.
U. A. Patel
Northwood, Middlesex
| |
LYNSEY BALMER, pharmacist adviser, fitness to practise and legal
affairs directorate, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, states:
When first
registering
a pharmacy with the Society owner’s are required to submit plans
of the area they wish to register for approval. Medicines Act legislation
does not prevent an owner registering a specific area within premises,
ie, the dispensary and medicines counter. However, consideration must
be given to a number of factors.
Section 78 of the Act restricts the use of the titles “pharmacy” and “chemist”.
Such titles cannot be used in connection with any area of a premises that is
not part of the registered pharmacy. Therefore a decision to register only
specific areas of a premises will have implications for the name of
the business, signage
on the shop fascia and any descriptions and emblems used on carrier bags and
stationery items.
Consideration also needs to be given to the security of stock in the registered
area of the premises. Pharmacy and prescription-only medicines could not
be sold or supplied from the non-registered area of the premises and robust
systems would
need to be in place to prevent any medicines being sold from the registered
area of the premises when there is not a pharmacist in personal control.
The registered
area would need to be clearly defined for both members of staff and the public.
The Society recognises
that the anomaly in the
Medicines Act, which allows the sale of GSL medicines from other retail establishments
without the need for a pharmacist to be present, places pharmacists in a
difficult position. However, the Society does not view deregistration of
areas within
community pharmacies as the solution to this problem, and is working closely
with the Department
of Health to ensure that legislation will reflect changes in practice and
allow pharmacists to offer comprehensive professional services to their patients.
The Department of Health advises that a consultation on this issue is imminent. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal