Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7327 p783
27 November 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 90K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

· Registration exam (2)
· Pharmacist prescribing
· Agenda for change
· New contract (3)
· Retention fees (2)
· Statins
· Levothyroxine
· The Journal


Letters to the Editor

Pharmacist prescribing

Independent prescriber would also have to be susceptible

From Mr N. P. Simmons, MRPharmS, and Dr C. M. Temple, MRPharmS

We were distressed to read that supplementary prescribers may be susceptible to undue influence from the promotional efforts of the pharmaceutical industry (PJ, 13 November, p707).

Pharmacists are professionals who act in the best interests of patients and it is disappointing to read that Charles Medawar feels that our colleagues can be so influenced. Indeed making such comments to an audience of non-pharmacists is unfortunate and potentially damaging to the profession.

Supplementary prescribers prescribe according to a clinical management plan (CMP) drawn up in consultation with an independent prescriber. Therefore both parties would need to be influenced by a drug company. These CMPs often refer to national guidelines and evidence-based practice, often using a narrow range of drugs with a proven track record of efficacy and safety, not the new money spinners that the drug companies are throwing their marketing weight behind. This approach means that supplementary prescribing is of the highest standard and it is hoped that this will, in time, influence the prescribing habits of our medical colleagues.

The comprehensive prescribing syllabus includes interpretation of scientific and “advertorial” literature and managing relationships with the drug companies. Even so, we have received requests from supplementary prescribers for yet more training in recognising and responding to promotional techniques used by the pharmaceutical industry.

Our supplementary prescribers are pathfinders, committed to demonstrating improved patient outcomes and, by comparison, comments we have heard from industry representatives on the attitudes and antics of medical practitioners show that nurses and pharmacists will have a lot of catching up to do.

Nigel Simmons
Non-Medical Prescribing Lead (Cambridgeshire)

Catherine Temple
Non-Medical Prescribing Facilitator (Norfolk)

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Registration exam)
Next Topic (Agenda for change)

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal