| · Waste disposal
· The profession
· New pharmacy contract (2)
· Medicines use reviews
· Pharmacists in the media
· Registration examination
· North East London LPC (2)
· BPC (2)
· Packaging
· Primary care
Letters to the Editor
|
New pharmacy contract
Which dispensing staff need to be declared?
From Mr K. Howell
I write regarding dispensing staff levels and practice payment. Until
now, the FP37C form has required pharmacy contractors to declare the
number of full-time dispensing staff in addition to the pharmacist (although
the Drug Tariff has never made this distinction). From next month, dispensing
staff levels will be declared on an hourly basis. However, the new wording
on the FP37C suggests that the (acting) pharmacist should now be included
in the new declaration. This would be an important change since contractors
may have needlessly recruited more staff to ensure they receive the full
practice payment. This would be an odd way to reward those trying to
comply with the new contract.
Following conflicting advice from the Prescription Pricing Authority
and the National Pharmacy Association I remain uncertain as to which
staff need to be declared. My frustration has been compounded by Tony
Schofield’s clarity on the matter (PJ, 17 September, p333
PDF (210K)): “I’m
glad the whole (dispensing) process, including checking exemptions, has
been taken into account.” It seems odd to me that staff involved
in checking exemptions (most probably counter assistants), should be
included in dispensing staff levels. Moreover, if they are part of the
dispensing process surely they need to be recognised dispensers and as
such, hold the requisite qualification (S/NVQ level two) or be working
towards this? Is this the case? Or can any member of the pharmacy team
who checks exemptions qualify as part of the dispensing staff?
Keith Howell
Herne Bay, Kent
| |
LINDSAY McCLURE, head of information services at the Pharmaceutical
Services Negotiating Committee responds:
There has been no change
of policy. Previously the first pharmacist full-time equivalent
did not need to be declared on the FP34C submission document but
the
pharmacist has always been included in the required staffing levels
(as set out in Part VIA of the Drug Tariff) and has been included
in the Prescription Pricing Authority’s calculation of staffing
levels.
For consistency, and to minimise the scope for confusion, the PSNC
agreed with the Department of Health that the wording on the FP34C
Form should be amended
slightly from October 2005 to include the pharmacist in the declaration. In
response to comments from contractors, there was also a change
made to the way that staffing
levels are declared — moving from declaring the number of full time equivalent
staff members to declaring the total number of hours that staff members supporting
the dispensing process work in an average week. Guidance on this was sent to
contractors by the PPA and a statement was included in the last issue of PSNC’s
Community Pharmacy News.
For the purposes of the staffing declaration, a contractor can count any staff
member who is supporting the dispensing process and who has been trained to
undertake the functions that are being performed by them. Exemption checking
is one of
the activities required by the terms of service when dispensing prescriptions,
so clearly it is part of the NHS dispensing process.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Code of Ethics requires that all staff
have the requisite knowledge, skills and fitness to perform work delegated to
them (A2 (h)). This does not require medicines counter assistants to be trained
as dispensers if their activities are limited to prescription reception. Detailed
information on the Society’s requirements around the training for support
staff is available on the Society’s website.
A PSNC and Department of Health joint statement on dispensing staff levels
including comprehensive information on who can and cannot be included in the
declaration
is available in the PSNC
Online Drug Tariff Resource Centre
For support with an individual query, please contact the PSNC National Prescription
Research Centre: 020 8441 8427. |
New services require a better rate of return
From Mr M. Embrey, MRPharmS
I am afraid I must be a little sceptical about the report in the PJ about
new services in Fife “generating healthy returns” (8 October,
p448 PDF (100K)). I applaud pharmacists developing and getting involved
in new services but am concerned that sometimes the funding may be insufficient.
Figures
provided for some of the services included £20 per hour (medication
review for patients over 75 years of age) and £300 for a two-day
clinic (hip fracture review) which would barely cover the cost of locum
cover, never mind provide a “healthy return”.
It has been acknowledged previously that the retail part of a pharmacy
business should not subsidise the dispensing part of the business.
Looking forward towards a new contract in Scotland, and as new services
are introduced in the rest of the UK, it is important that our negotiators
apply the same principle to new services — they should not be subsidised
by the current dispensing business.
New services require investment of time, money and staff and it is not
enough that they simply pay for themselves as suggested by the figures
above. There needs to be a suitable rate of return on that investment,
as in any other private enterprise.
Michael Embrey
Falkirk, Stirlingshire
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal