| · Pharmacy technicians (4)
· Internet sites
· NAWP
· CPD
· Community pharmacy (3)
· Birdsgrove House (2)
· Council election (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Community pharmacy
Thoughts on the new contract
From Mr C. Morris, MRPharmS
Having recently attended an evening hosted by a local pharmaceutical
committee and primary care trust concerning the new pharmacy contract
I would like to share a few thoughts.
The first thing we were told was that neither the LPC nor the PCT knew
the full details of the new contract or how it was going to affect us.
The next thing they said was that the PCT had no money to pay pharmacists
for the advanced or enhanced services.
Now, many of my colleagues feel that we are unduly blessed to be in the
first waves of new initiatives such as the minor ailments and emergency
hormonal contraception patient group directions but we find that these
are now classed as enhanced services for which we should be able to claim
funds. Even things such as needle exchange and smoking cessation are
in there, but can we claim extra money? No, because there is no money
to claim.
I think that we would all be well within our rights to withdraw the services
but I am sure no one would do such a thing. It also begs the question,
why was the vote on the new contract rushed through so quickly? The paperwork
and fine detail clearly were not ready. Was it purely so the wool could
be pulled over our eyes that much more easily?
I had a thought, though. Surely the Government, not releasing all of
the needed information for the implementation of the new contract, can
be seen to be a breach of that contract and could this not give us the
chance to overturn what is rapidly becoming a ludicrous situation and
give us the opportunity to fight for a more sensible contract?
We also find that to practise as pharmacists we have to be registered
with a PCT and that it has to verify that we are fit for service. Now,
the only contact I have had with the PCT thus far was an altercation
with one of its members over what I considered to be a major breach of
protocol. Of course as that person was a PCT member she received the
backing of the multiple that I was working for and I received what I
considered an unwarranted ticking off. As it was only the PCT I let it
go at that but I now have to consider that the PCT will have this on
record, it will also see that it was backed up by my employer and that
I did not contest it. So a person that will have no regard for me could
have a say in my future work prospects, along with paperwork possibly
to back it up.
Who is the PCT to judge? I can see that a local authority may have local
hands-on knowledge that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society Ethics Committee
might not have, but surely all that was required was the ability for
the PCT to refer any problems to the Society? Does it really need the
power to veto pharmacists’ registration?
I hope that the new Council can take some of these worries on board and
maybe do something to help those of us at grassroots level, as candidates
promised to do in the run up to the election, and help us poor pharmacists
fight poor legislation of which we are not yet even aware.
Chris Morris
Newquay, Cornwall
Communication from our LHB is non-existent
From Mrs A. Osman, MRPharmS
Over the past few weeks I have been reading in the PJ that effective
communication with the local health board is essential to the new contract.
We have a major problem with communication from our LHB — it is
non-existent.
A few weeks ago we had a telephone call from the local surgery to tell
us that we would no longer be supplying Advantage 2, Compact or One Touch
Ultra test strips on an FP10. I telephoned the surgery to get more information
and was told that the LHB had delivered stocks of these items for the
diabetes nurse to give out.
I understand that strip use must be rationalised but I thought we were
in an ideal position to do this with some guidelines as to how this should
be approached. My understanding is that practice nurses and diabetes
nurses do not have the time to take on extra responsibilities.
Every day we are hearing from more pharmacists that this has happened
in their surgeries. In one surgery, our service level to patients has
gone from the five and a half days that our pharmacy is open to one and
a half days when the diabetes nurse is in the practice . We are concerned
for those diabetic patients who work having to take further time off
to obtain supplies.
I have raised my concerns to the Local Diabetes Services Advisory Group
meeting and the two LHB representatives who were there had no idea what
was going on. They have promised to get back to me.
The lack of communication from the LHB in all of this is a disgrace.
It has not consulted anyone. If anyone in Pontypridd and Rhondda is concerned
please e-mail me arleneosman@msn.com and I will forward their concerns
to Community Pharmacy Wales.
Arlene Osman
Secretary, Mid Glamorgan East Branch
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Monster multiples
From Mr G. W. Walker, FRPharmS
I am writing in support of Noel Baumber in his battle to defend
the independents in our profession (PJ, 23 April, p486).
I see the situation as being relatively simple. The problem is not one
of profession but of money. The multiples’ shareholders are earning
such large profits that they can afford to buy any business that comes
on the market irrespective of its potential profitability. The independents
do not get the opportunity since the multiple has already done its canvassing
and made a tempting offer.
In case you think my views are hypothetical, I have to confirm that I
have bought and sold four independents in my career, and wish to give
Mr Baumber my full support against the monster of multiple pharmacy.
Graham Walker
Totnes, Devon
|
