| · Reciprocity (2)
· CPD
· Prescribing
· New Pharmacy contract
· Birdsgrove House
· The Society
Letters to the Editor
|
Reciprocity
Disappointed
From Mr J. Edmunds, MRPharmS
I have been waiting for reactions from “practising” members
regarding the end
of reciprocal registration between Britain and South
Africa, Australia and New Zealand (PJ, 23 April, p495). As few have been
forthcoming, I have decided to raise my head above the parapet.
As a pharmacist who qualified in South Africa in 1962, and who has now
been registered in the UK for almost 20 years, I am most disappointed
that this has come to pass. Especially when one reads of the shortage
of pharmacists and our need to employ pharmacists from the EU.
Many hard-working well-trained pharmacists from the countries mentioned
above have performed a valuable service to the profession, particularly
by filling vacancies that would otherwise be left open, or by providing
much needed locum services. To remove the possibility of recent graduates
from these countries continuing this tradition, with the stroke of a
pen, seems unreasonable. I cannot understand why this reciprocity cannot
be perpetuated, when it is continued with other health care related professional
bodies.
I do believe that the Society is pushing itself into a corner. It is
already depriving the profession of experienced pharmacists, via the
recent fee changes which have forced pharmacists to choose between being
practising or non-practising. It is now exacerbating the situation by
denying itself access to an alternative reserve of competent practitioners.
I shall not sympathise with future reports complaining that there is
a shortage of pharmacists, but merely draw the attention of the leaders
of the profession to their follies. I was of the impression that we were
intent on “saving our Society” not the opposite.
John Edmunds
Tring,
Hertfordshire
Mutual ignorance
From Dr M. King, MRPharmS
Lois Quam and Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ, published an article
in March this year asking what the US and UK health systems could learn
from each other.1 They cite mutual ignorance as a barrier to the exchange
of ideas and note that few people have a deep understanding of more than
one system.
The loss of reciprocity will further the cause of mutual ignorance, as
pharmacists with a good knowledge of the British and Australasian systems
will slowly die out. Academic exchange will be restricted, as many academic
appointments require registration. European pharmacists may fill places,
but the health systems in many European countries are quite different to
those in Britain, making the transfer of many ideas impractical. Britain
and Australia are similar in this respect and many ideas have moved between
countries. There is no point highlighting how Australia has benefited from
this exchange, but I am able to highlight some benefits for Britain.
The Scottish Medicines Consortium has been able to draw from the experiences
of Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The long
established nature of the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme (over
50 years) and its methods of offering patient choice, while controlling
expenditure, reducing the use of inappropriate drugs, preventing the inappropriate
use of expensive drugs, supporting original pack dispensing and managing
prescription repeats, means that Britain has a wealth of experience from
which to learn.
Recent research in Australia involving the “Quality care pharmacy
program” (a system of standards and accreditation for community pharmacy),
medication review, and dose administration (compliance) aids, is relevant
to Britain. But the door is about to be closed on the free flow of information
and ideas. These exchanges will eventually be lost, or worse, be between
those operating in mutual ignorance.
At the very least, those eligible under the reciprocal agreement on the
date it ceases should be able to register under those terms if they come
to Britain in the future, as surely their training does not become inadequate
overnight. The adjudication process of a year of university, a year of
preregistration and the registration examination should be re-examined.
Britain can learn from pharmacists in many countries, but these requirements
are demeaning and offensive to those it can learn the most from. Please
reconsider.
Michelle King
Aberdeen
References
1. Quam L, Smith R. What can the UK and US health systems learn from
each other? BMJ 2005;330:530-3. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal