| · Problem-based learning
· Support staff (2)
· Co-proxamol
· Mental health
· New contract
· Repeat dispensing
· Overseas pharmacists (2)
· Registration
· Recruitment
· The profession
Letters to the Editor
|
New contract
We will still be chasing volume
From Mr P. R. Rodwell, MRPharmS
Average independent pharmacy contractors doing average numbers of items
per month will no doubt view the new contract as something and nothing.
Yes, there are opportunities but many of these are dependent on others,
eg, primary care trusts and competition.
The PJ has been full of correspondence from small contractors, especially
the ever vocal London contingent, while the large contractors have stayed
quiet. Your issue of 19 February finally made me realise why.
· The new contract is definitely volume-based. The bulk of our income is
still dependent on the numbers of green forms we handle. This has been
confirmed by the way we will be paid to help patients covered by the Disabilities
Act. I, and many of my colleagues, believed we would receive a fee for
each patient deemed to be covered by this Act. This would have allowed
us to help these patients proactively. But no! Our all-knowing negotiating
body (the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee) has gone for a
fixed fee for all patients. Therefore the more green forms we handle the
more fees we earn, no matter what effort we put into helping these patients.
In the area where I work we are paid £13 per month for a patient
using a monitored dosage system (well below that necessary for a fair return).
This means each MDS patient is equivalent to 240 extra fees at 5.5p. The
average pharmacy (4,500 items per month) will only be in receipt of fees
for about 20 patients. If this were funded correctly that would go down
to about six patients.
· The future of the pharmacist is at risk. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society
is pushing harder and harder for control of technicians, the multiples
want a wider role for technicians, and the PSNC wants to relax pharmacist
supervision thereby giving greater power to technicians. Now I do not have
a problem with the abilities of technicians or for that matter dispensary
assistants, so long as they work within their competencies. However, I
do have an issue with responsibilities. At present, any problems that occur,
however small, are the responsibility of the pharmacist. Why then should
the pharmacist remain responsible for a technician’s errors if supervision
is relaxed. The ultimate sanction to a pharmacist is to be struck off leading
to a substantial loss of income, and rightly so if the circumstances are
such. However, if a technician makes a major dispensing clanger and a patient
suffers harm, who will be admonished? The pharmacist. The technician may
well lose his or her job, but not their registration, therefore could work
elsewhere with minimum loss of income.
I hope I do not come over as a grumpy, bitter independent contractor,
because I am not. I thoroughly enjoy the job and the challenges. I employ
more staff than necessary in order to give a first-class service, and I
invest heavily in my premises and equipment. However, I do not see how
the new funding from April will enhance pharmacy as a whole, because I
believe we will all still be chasing volume. Also, having no pharmacists
in pharmacies does not look good. Our strength has always been to be available
when asked for. Sometimes this is difficult, but customers and patients
like it and use it.
The next three years will be interesting indeed.
Paul Rodwell
Wallingford,
Oxfordshire |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal