Cinderella service no more
Until relatively recently, prison medical services did not have a good reputation. Prisoners could not expect the same standard of care they would have if they were not serving their sentences and they suffered greater morbidity and mortality than the rest of the population.
However, matters have improved considerably over the past two years or so, partly
because the Government has recognised that prisoners’ health needs are
better served by integrating the prison health service with the NHS. And prison
pharmacy services have been leading the way in contributing to improvements in
the prison health service. The Article in this week’s issue describing
the service at HMP Holloway (p234) and an Original paper describing a dermatology
clinic at prisons in Doncaster (p232 PDF (70K)) illustrate the point and reveal what a
modern service can achieve.
This week sees a further initiative to ensure best practice is adopted across
prisons: the publication by the National Prescribing Centre of guidelines to
ensure prisoners are able to take responsibility for their own medicines, without
risk to themselves or to other prisoners (see News feature p221). Such “medication
in-possession” policies are not new and have been adopted in many prisons
throughout Britain. However, the development of these guidelines is a further
acknowledgement that the prison health service is losing its image as a Cinderella
service.
Back to Top
|
Why Birdsgrove House must close
News that Birdsgrove House is to close and that the Benevolent Fund will commission convalescent services and addiction treatment services from other providers (p215 and p220) will probably not come as a surprise to many members. The decision, we can be sure, will not be universally
welcomed, but running Birdsgrove House at a loss — to the tune
of nearly £2m over the past five years — is not sustainable
in the long term. Moreover, a further £500,000 would need to be
spent in order to bring the facilities up to the standards that legislation
covering such services demands.
Questions must be asked of all those who would wish the Benevolent Fund
to retain Birdsgrove House. Is the provision of convalescent services
at the house the best use of fund resources? Is there any justification
for spending such sums for the benefit of a relatively small number of
people? Would it be better to realise the asset and give greater spending
power to the fund?
These are emotive questions and The Journal acknowledges that. However,
when guarantees of access to equivalent services elsewhere have been
offered, any further debate seems pointless.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal