|
· Professional regulation
· Code of Ethics (2)
· The profession (4)
· Community pharmacy (2)
· Multiples
· Accuracy checking
· CPPE (3)
· Medicines use review
· Emergency supplies (2)
· Controlled Drugs
· NHS
· Nutrition
· Fellowship
· The Council
· Retention fees
· Section 60 Order
Letters to the Editor
|
Community pharmacy
Contract limitation must go
From Mr D. F. Miller, MRPharmS
Employee community pharmacists are apathetic, disillusioned, frustrated,
and discontented. The major reason for this, in my view, is contract
limitation, which has frustrated the ambitions of hundreds of pharmacists
since its introduction.
The ideals behind it were admirable, endeavouring to protect existing
pharmacies and, initially, one could understand the Society supporting
it.
Over the years it has proved to be a disaster for all except those with
a vested interest. This, more than any other factor, has led to the present
demise of employee pharmacists.
It is no wonder that pharmacy has been ignored by Government, excluded
from decision-making committees and our respect within the community
diminished. Any profession that allows decision-making organisations
such as primary care trusts to accept adequacy as an acceptable level
of service deserves no better. How others perceive us is of immeasurable
importance.
Those defending contract limitation against the findings of the impartial
Office of Fair Trading did pharmacy a major disservice and have allowed
the multiples and supermarkets to continue to expand their market share.
Why is legislation that prevents a pharmacist from practising his profession
within the NHS not deemed to be an infringement of human rights? I wonder
if the question of human rights and contract limitation has ever been
fully examined.
Until contract limitation finally disappears, what can a frustrated,
poorly paid pharmacist do? Pharmacists now have an opportunity to exploit
the 2005 legislation with the introduction of choice into the equation.
There must be hundreds of locations in our towns and cities where the
pharmaceutical supply is monopolised by multiples and where individual
pharmacists or their representatives could justifiably expect to be granted
a contract under the banner of patient choice.
The greater the number of applications, the greater the likelihood of
success. Refusal should not be deemed a failure as appeals against these
refusals incurs cost to Government, which could help to bring about a
desired change in legislation. Although I would not normally advocate
wastage of NHS resources, I believe in this instance it would be justifiable.
Should the choice application fail, a contract is guaranteed for the
100-hour per week pharmacy. Although no individual could run a 100-hour
per week pharmacy, in every town there must be opportunities for two,
three or four pharmacists to set up such an operation. The increased
job satisfaction alone would be worth the effort.
Pharmacists still have the ultimate weapon. Without their supervision
the multiple and supermarket pharmacies cannot function. However, we
should be mindful of the effect that computers and webcams could have.
Legislation enabling their use could be introduced so that one pharmacist
could supervise several locations, a situation that I am sure would interest
the supermarkets.
Unless more independent pharmacies are allowed to be established our
profession will continue its inextricable decline into commercialism
dominated by profit-oriented organisations.
David Miller
Congleton, Cheshire
A sign of the times
From Mr M. J. Kirk, MRPharmS
While I was undertaking one of my occasional locum duties at a small
suburban community pharmacy recently, a young man sought advice about
his foot. Did he have a verruca or something else, and what would be
the recommended treatment?
Nothing unusual in this you might say. All in a day’s work. As
indeed it was and so was the confirmation and the recommendation.
However, instead of the usual fumbling with shoe and sock on the chair
in the corner for close examination, he showed me a beautiful digital
picture on his mobile telephone. I was unable to decide whether this
bit of enterprise was due to lateral thought or embarrassment. It was
certainly a first for me. I suppose I am getting old.
Michael J. Kirk
Orpington,
Kent
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal