Facing more risk in practice
Are you comfortable taking risks? Probably not. Pharmacists — whether by temperament or training — tend to be cautious. But this is for good reason: they must ensure that the medicines they dispense for patients are the ones that the prescriber intended, and that they will be taken at the right dose and at the right time.
The potential harm that may be caused to patients when things go awry
is a sufficient reason for pharmacists to keep their eyes on the pill,
as it were. However, the fact that they could, as things stand at the
moment, face a disciplinary committee hearing if they make a dispensing
error adds to their caution. None of this is new, of course, but pharmacists
who are taking up more clinical roles, particularly those who are supplementary
prescribers or on the point of becoming independent prescribers, will
find they are living in a less black and white world.
Practising good medicine is an art as well as a science. Pharmacists
may know this is theoretically the case but practising it is harder.
Doctors are relaxed about this. The art that they employ in treating
patients successfully may be just as significant as the scientific evidence
on which the treatment is based.
This week’s Broad
spectrum (p340) examines the fact that, in the
new world, pharmacists are going to have to face more risk and that they
are going to have to learn to be comfortable with it. The challenge is
that pharmacists will learn as they go along and do not have the advantage
of doctors, whose training acknowledges this from day one.
Back to Top |
Was interest in Council election diverted?
This year, for the first time in living memory, there will be no
ballots for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council election (p347). The last time this happened was 1919 (although no elections were called during the 1939–45 war). This year, as in 1919, the number of candidates standing for election exactly matches the number of vacancies and therefore no ballot is required.
It is tempting to put this down to the uncertainty surrounding the future of
the Society following the establishment of the General Pharmaceutical Council
but the timing of the Government’s announcement, just nine days before
the closing date for nominations, makes that unlikely.
A more likely explanation might be that the establishment of the three national
pharmacy boards — the elections for which attracted over 70 candidates — has
captured the attention of the profession. This may well be a good thing, since
the boards could prove to be the way forward for professional leadership. Interest
in standing for the Council may have been temporarily diverted.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal