| · Department of Health
· Work pressures (2)
· Homoeopathy (2)
· Controlled drugs
· Safety
· Oxygen service
· Compliance aids
· Needle exchange
· Paracetamol
· Smoking cessation
· The profession (2)
· Retention fees (4)
· The Society (2)
· Public image
Letters to the Editor
|
The profession
Foster review creates an opportunity
From Mrs L. M. O'Loan, MRPharmS, MPSNI
The Foster review recommends that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and
the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland merge and separate their
regulatory and professional roles. The majority of professional members
on the regulatory body should be appointed rather than elected. Therefore,
further changes to the Society’s Council “seem
inevitable if the Society is to continue as the profession’s regulator” (PJ,
22 July, p97). Perry
Melnick (PJ, 12 August, p188) expresses concern
that this means he will not have a say in who represents his views, and
how, and he asks “why would we want to replace our representatives
on a relatively reasonably run Society by outsiders?” It is worth
noting that the Foster review makes recommendations on professional regulation
only — not professional representation.
Recent letters to The Journal suggest that pharmacists in Britain expect
their representative professional body to be more than “relatively
reasonably run”. Pharmacists in Northern Ireland seem to share
this expectation.
At a Northern Ireland Centre for Postgraduate Pharmaceutical Education
and Training “Influencing and persuading” workshop held in
May, 14 pharmacists from a variety of backgrounds (the community, trust
and board) discussed the need for the profession to influence key stakeholders
(the general public, other health care professionals and fund-holders)
to persuade them to use pharmacy services and pharmacists’ skills
fully and appropriately, and to secure continued funding for pharmacy
services and service development. The community pharmacists at the workshop
felt that their skills and services are currently underused due to a
lack of awareness by stakeholders (including pharmacists working in other
settings). Indeed, the hospital pharmacists present were unaware of some
services offered by community pharmacists. Participants at the workshop
thought the key messages that the whole profession in Northern Ireland
needs to communicate more effectively to its stakeholders include:
· Pharmacists are medicines experts
· Pharmacy staff are undertaking new roles and providing new services
· Pharmacy services are accessible and of a high quality
They thought that this could be achieved by an “appropriate representative
professional body” with a dedicated “communication spokesperson” making
better use of the media and advertising, along with individual pharmacists
building relationships with key stakeholders locally.
It is my view that the Foster review creates an opportunity for the whole
profession in the UK to form an “appropriate representative professional
body”, and to strengthen its public relations and lobbying activities.
Laura O’Loan
Pharmacy Education and Training Specialist
Belfast
Improvement is needed
From Ms H. A. Leake Date, MRPharmS
Adam Sutherland (PJ, 12 August, p188) exhorts Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Council members to defend community pharmacists following a disparaging
article in The Times entitled “Just grab the pills and run”.
I did not see the article to which he refers, so I cannot comment directly
on it. However, before we ask a Council member to defend community pharmacists
and their extended roles, perhaps we should reflect honestly on the service
that the majority of patients receive.
I am all in favour of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians developing
their roles and the services they provide, and I know that there are
many excellent community pharmacists practising, often under difficult
circumstances. But, and this is a big but, my experience as a patient
is totally in keeping with the sentiment of “grab the pills and
run”. Admittedly I am not a pharmacy “frequent flyer”,
but I have had several prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacies
over the past year, for different items, at different pharmacies, so
I am sure my experience is not unique. I have never once been asked if
I have had the medicine before or if I am taking any other medicines.
When given a course of antibiotics I have not been asked about allergies
or the oral contraceptive pill (in fact the GP covered all of the questions
I would have expected to come from the pharmacist). I have not been given
any verbal instructions and the medicines have just been handed to me
in a bag by the counter assistant.
Praise and credit should be given where due and I wholeheartedly support
those colleagues who are providing excellent patient-focused services.
However, we should not try to defend the indefensible and would do better
to find ways of encouraging those pharmacists (in any branch of the profession)
whose activities provoke such offending articles, to improve their practice.
Heather Leake Date
Brighton
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal