|
Martin Palmer is a pharmacist from Bristol
|
In accordance with the Which? report, the National Pharmacy Association
and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee have both indicated
that the public
do not understand the new role and services provided
by community pharmacists (PJ, 6 August, p157). Colette McCreedy of the
NPA stated that “the public do not know about the new role of pharmacists,
because they have not been informed about it yet”. In other words,
the majority of those visiting our pharmacies each day still believe
that we are primarily “pill counters”, “label stickers’” and “OTC
suppliers”.
Why are the general public not better informed about the pharmaceutical
services all community and hospital pharmacists are capable of supplying?
One explanation for this, which never seems to be discussed by our profession,
is the difficulty that pharmacy has in obtaining media “air time” compared
with other health care professions. The reason for this, I believe, is
two-fold: the absence of pharmacists as an expert source of pharmaceutical
knowledge in the media and a lack of a presence of our profession in
popular mainstream culture.
Compared with other health care professions, pharmacy is poorly represented
when expert pharmaceutical opinion is required for news items and programmes
aimed at community pharmacy’s core clientele (breakfast and daytime
television viewers). Typically, when a news channel requires an expert’s
view on a pharmaceutical matter that any pharmacist could answer, a medical
practitioner is always used. For instance, “BBC Breakfast” has
Dr Rosemary Leonard and “GMTV” has Dr Hilary Jones. What
tends to be most galling about this is that even when the pharmaceutical
matter in question is discussed on location at a community pharmacy,
with the pharmacy staff in the background, these medical practitioners
are still used to supply the answer to the viewing public. Even the flagship
of daytime television, “This Morning”, has a resident GP
who advises on every medical query, including our specialism. Does the
Royal Pharmaceutical Society not have a representative who could do an
equivalent or better job than these GPs? Is there a route onto these
programmes for a photogenic, knowledgeable pharmacist or are television
producers resistant to the idea of employing anyone other than a doctor
on their shows?
Pharmacy is also poorly represented in other areas of mainstream culture.
Among the health care professions, doctors are the most represented across
time, status and the type of entertainment. Serial dramas such as “Doctors”, “Casualty” and “Holby
City” give a “realistic” view to the lay person of
what doctors deal with in their everyday life. Dramas such as “Silent
Witness”, “Nip/Tuck” and “House” make medicine
interesting for youngsters and comedies such as “Scrubs” and “Green
Wing”, even though satirising doctors, still keep the limelight
on the medical profession. Doctors are also a mainstay in “soapland”,
with “Eastenders” and “Coronation Street” having
their own surgeries. Nurses are found in numerous productions, including
those mentioned above, with some focusing solely on their specialty,
such as “Where the Heart is” and “No Angels”,
both of which keep nursing in the public eye. Even veterinary surgeons
(“Emmerdale” and “All Creatures Great and Small”)
and dentists (“My Family”) get a mention in programming.
Where are the shows that focus on pharmacy?
When television has given the nod to pharmacy, our profession has been
given short shrift, mainly due to what can only be described as ignorance
with regard to what pharmacists achieve day in and day out in their working
lives. It is obvious that television producers do not consult the Society
when pharmacists are part of their shows. For instance, in a recent episode
of “Hollyoaks”, one of the female characters went on a drunken
binge and had unprotected sex. Later in the episode she was persuaded
by her sister to get emergency hormonal contraception (EHC) from the
local pharmacy. This scene comprised of the traditional “condom
joke” scenario, where the pharmacist asked the character to speak
up in front of a crowded shop, and where the actual supply of the EHC
comprised a cursory nod by the pharmacist (no questions asked) and immediate
supply from the shelf. At best it reveals that television researchers
and producers are lazy; at worst, it demonstrates that pharmacists as
health care professionals are not considered to be on a par with doctors
or nurses as far as the media are concerned. If we were, programme researchers
would attempt to get their facts right. The worst thing about this episode
is that the audience of “Hollyoaks”, traditionally 14–25
year olds, will be put off obtaining EHC from a pharmacy as they will
feel a lack of confidentiality and professionalism associated with the
transaction. I sent a communication with my concerns about the above
to the producers of the show — I have yet to receive a reply.
Yet at least “Hollyoaks” has a pharmacy presence. The major
hospital dramas of “Casualty” and “Holby City” make
no mention of pharmacy (unless the sign to the department moves into
shot). I can understand that pharmacists are not prominent members of
an accident and emergency department but “Holby City” is
based in wards that have surgical and cardiothoracic specialties and
a maternity unit — there must be room for a pharmacist visiting
at least one of these. I am certain that in such an environment in the
real world, pharmacists hold key directorate posts in surgery and cardiac
medicine — why is reality not matched by fiction? Would it take
researchers, scriptwriters and producers too far out of their comfort
zone to introduce a pharmacist into these programmes?
I am sure that on a local level Society branch public relations officers
are highlighting new initiatives in community and hospital pharmacies
whenever they occur. The Which? report underlines that there is far more
work to be done in this regard, especially as most pharmacies are beginning
medicines use review schemes, something that the general public do not
know about and should be made aware of as soon as possible.
However, the regular use of doctors instead of pharmacists as experts
for pharmaceutical matters by news channels and the lack of pharmacy
representation in fictional drama is not helping us show the public what
it is we actually do in 2005. Local initiatives are not enough — the
Society must endeavour to get pharmacy noticed, not just by lobbying
politicians but also by getting our representatives talking on daytime
TV and characterised in popular prime-time programming. A popular serial
drama about pharmacists, anyone? |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal