| · New contract
· Medicines management
· Registration examination
· Levothyroxine
· Hiccups
· Prescription pricing
· IT
· Personal control
· Control of entry
· Supermarket pharmacies
· Retention fees
· The Society
· The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
Personal control
An anachronism not an anomaly
From Professor J. Wingfield, FRPharmS
May I suggest that the current arrangements for personal control and
the resultant constraints on General Sale List (GSL) sales in pharmacies
are not an “anomaly” (PJ, 23 October, p589). Their thrust
was intended at the time of drafting and reflected the earlier controls
in the preceding 1933 Pharmacy and Poisons Act. Their effect is, however,
an anachronism in today’s society where the Office of Fair Trading,
the Government and now the public regard GSLs as mere commodities in
an open market place.
Just as the case law and Royal Pharmaceutical Society interpretations
of the meaning of supervision became anachronistic in the 1990s, so now
is the effect of personal control on GSLs in pharmacies. At that time,
the Society (no doubt with Department of Health approval) simply changed
its interpretation and decreed that henceforth supervision meant compliance
with a specified sale of medicines protocol. Happily this change, unsupported
by law, passed without challenge and appears to be largely observed (pace
Which? reports). Most importantly, the law is still in place and could
be invoked if necessary.
A similar solution — a reinterpretation of the meaning of personal
control — is surely by now the best response to the current concerns.
The use of protocols whereby the absence of the pharmacist is planned,
transparent and limited could ensure that the availability of the pharmacist
is tailored to periods of highest public demand and at other times the
pharmacist could be engaged in professional activities with contingency
arrangements if urgent recall were needed.
The scope of such protocols was debated at a meeting of the Institute
of Pharmacy Management International in 2003 (Chemist & Druggist,
12 April, p14, and IPMI News, September 2003) and I offered to explore
their possibilities with the Chief Pharmacist as a response to the Pharmacy
Vision 2003 document. Removing the law on personal control could have
serious knock-on consequences that must be carefully thought through;
for example, the impact on the employment prospects for pharmacists could
be substantial. If the law is retained, the possibility remains to prosecute,
or bring disciplinary action against, attempts to abuse any reinterpretation.
If the law is revoked, I suggest it will never be reinstated.
Joy Wingfield
Professor of Pharmacy Law and Ethics
Nottingham School of Pharmacy
Members must have a meaningful input to consultation
From Mr B. D. Nathwani, MRPharmS
Two points from The Pharmaceutical Journal of 2 October make me fearful
that the membership view of personal control has and will be ignored
by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
The first point was the announcement (p454) by the Pharmaceutical Services
Negotiating Committee that contractors
should wait to see how the new
contract money should be distributed. The new contract affects all pharmacists
because this is the visible public face of pharmacy with which everyone
is familiar. Changes to working practices here will have a huge impact
on pharmacy practice. How a pharmacist exercises personal control will
be impacted on by the terms of the new contract and individual primary
care trust requirements. Can the Society therefore advise us as to what
the interface is between itself and the PSNC to discuss these changes
and the mechanism by which the whole membership be kept informed of these
discussions?
If there is no such interface does the Society think that there should
be one? Does it think it right and fair that community pharmacists (not
contractors) have had no direct say in the manner in which the PSNC negotiates
a contract which will affect all practising community pharmacists? How
is the interest of individual community pharmacists being protected?
The second point concerned Lynsey
Balmer’s statement (p465) that
the Society is working closely with the Department of Health regarding
personal control. How does this close working fit in with the new contract?
Did the Society seek the views of the National Pharmaceutical Association
or the PSNC before embarking on this discussion with the DoH? Will the
Society seek the views of its members and then present a Society membership
position to the DoH or has the Society’s executive presented its
view of future personal control?
Will this Society executive viewpoint become the DoH position on personal
control when it releases its consultation document to all interested
parties. This is a fundamental point of governance which cannot be skirted.
As it stands I fear that the consultation document which the DoH may
produce will present a fait accompli of the direction the Society or
the PSNC (by virtue of its negotiated new contract) wants the issue of
personal control to go. Thus the opportunity for meaningful individual
pharmacist input once this document is released will have long passed.
Proper interfaces enable participation and meaningful input. Failure
to engage the membership leads to apathy.
Bharat Nathwani
Pinner, Middlesex
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal