| · The Guild (2)
· Gender
· Prescriptions
· Medicines use reviews (3)
· Supervision (2)
· Skin cancer
· North East London LPC
· Birdsgrove House
· The Society (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Supervision
A future lacking the personal touch?
From Mr P. R. Rodwell, MRPharmS
Will the pharmacy of the future be a call centre on some foreign shore?
News that the Health Bill includes a proposal to replace the current
personal control requirements for pharmacy fills me with some fear, but
also presents an opportunity.
The fear: one pharmacist — in responsible control of more than
one pharmacy. Our biggest asset has always been that pharmacists are
easily accessible to the public. Will the future be by appointment only,
video link or telephone?
I see this proposal as a means for pharmacy owners to reduce their costs
by having fewer than one pharmacist per pharmacy. Technicians and robots
will do the grafting, and with electronic transmission of prescriptions,
we are not needed to check the safety of a prescription, since the computer
can do that. Actually, two computers can do that — the doctor’s
and ours. As for over-the-counter advice, NHS Direct staff can do that,
with all their knowledge, support and questioning skills. If a pharmacist
is needed as well then an “0800” number somewhere (maybe
India) staffed by 100 or so pharmacists should suffice.
The opportunity: I staff my pharmacies with a pharmacist, thereby giving
the public an opportunity to talk to a pharmacist personally. I can see
the advertisement now: “My pharmacy — putting people first.”
My advice: do not forget the personal touch. All these wonderful new
ideas in the new contract are all well and good but they take us away
from what I believe people want: easy informal contact with a person
they know and trust. Sitting in consultation rooms, meetings or on the
end of a telephone puts up barriers to that contact.
Do not let the profession go the same way as big business customer services,
ie, a call centre a long way away.
Paul Rodwell
Oxon, Oxfordshire
Concerned about proposals
From Mrs P. S. Maycock, MRPharmS
I am concerned about the proposal to change the requirements for community
pharmacies so that they no longer need to be under the personal control
and supervision of a pharmacist. If the Health Bill is passed my understanding
is that the pharmacist will no longer need to be on the premises at all
times.
I presume this will mean that the supply of Controlled Drugs and emergency
supplies, including emergency hormonal contraceptives, could be delegated
to a pharmacy technician.
The strength of community pharmacy has always been the ready availability
of the pharmacist for advice on the purchase of medicines and the supply
of prescription drugs.
A pharmacist trains for five years and by advising on drug purchases
and drug interactions, may prevent serious side effects and complications,
eg, in the cases of warfarin use, epilepsy, pregnancy etc.
I am glad I am nearing the end of my career as a pharmacist. I see a
demise of pharmacy if unqualified staff (ie, not pharmacists) are allowed
to supervise dispensing and medicines sales without the direct control
of a pharmacist. Patients are going to see no difference between purchasing
medicines at a pharmacy or purchasing them at the local garage or supermarket.
I realise that pharmacists need to make more use of their clinical skills
to offer a wider range of services but surely this should be done on
the premises.
The situation is such that the pharmacy will be able to carry on functioning
when the responsible pharmacist is on sick leave, a day off, or on holiday,
without the need to employ a locum. I hope I am misinterpreting the situation.
Patricia Maycock
Truro, Cornwall
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal