Opportunities and threats
With the risk of The Journal becoming boring and repetitive, pharmacists in England who have hopes that the profession will have a significant part to play in the future of primary health care and primary care trusts can take action today. The consultation on the future structure
and function of professional executive committees — following
publication of the review of PECs commissioned by the Department of
Health from the NHS Alliance last week — is an excellent opportunity
for pharmacists to communicate their views and they should respond
accordingly.
The disappointing conclusion in the review — as far as some pharmacists
will be concerned — is that it does not recommend that pharmacists
should have a reserved place on a reformed PEC (the team that currently
takes the PCT lead on clinical issues). In fact, the review suggests
that no professional group should have a place as of right and that individuals
who want to participate should have to prove their suitability by demonstrating
that their skills and experience match the new job descriptions that
will be drawn up for PEC members. Successful candidates will not be appointed
simply by virtue of being a doctor, dentist, nurse or pharmacist (or
a member of another allied health care profession) but by what they will
be able to bring to the party in helping focus the strategy of their
PCT.
At the launch of the review last week several
existing PEC chairmen were concerned that reformed PECs would still be dominated by GPs with little
input from other professionals, although the primary care lead at the
DoH said that he wanted to encourage a broad church of professionals
to become involved (p657).
Nevertheless, most individuals appointed to the new PECs (expected to
be more streamlined and with different priorities) are likely to be those
who have previous experience. And with 60 per cent of former PECs having
appointed a pharmacist since 2004, there is still an opportunity for
visionary pharmacists to prove that they have as much understanding of
the needs of their community as any other health professional and a great
deal to contribute.
So much for the opportunities.
This week also saw the publication of revised guidance for practice-based
commissioning — of much more practical concern to the average community
pharmacist. Winning a contract to provide a pharmaceutical service at
the moment seems to mean an ability to persuade GPs that it will not
detract from any services that GPs provide and will bring benefits to
patients over and above anything GP practices may offer. This is an uphill
struggle because there is not
yet sufficient UK-based evidence to support
the pharmacy case (p655). And, until commissioning enhanced pharmaceutical
services become the norm, there is a likelihood that pharmacists will
continue to struggle.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal