| • Pseudoephedrine (3)
• Dispensing
• Remote supervision
• White Paper (3)
• Product promotion
• Children's medicines
Letters to the Editor
|
Remote supervision
We must make remote supervision a remote possibility
From Mr M. Koziol, MRPharmS
The stated position of the Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA)
on remote supervision (the plan to operate a pharmacy in the absence of
a pharmacist) is that it constitutes a significant threat to public safety.
When we lobby members of Parliament and other key decision makers, it never
takes long for them to become alarmed at the prospect of what is really
being proposed.
When we surveyed pharmacists on the subject, an overwhelming majority of
them saw this proposal as nothing more than a cost cutting exercise that
would benefit the Government and some large employers.
Bharat Nathwani (PJ, 17 March, p310) provides solid evidence to confound
those who would suggest that a standard-operating-procedure-style approach
could suitably replace the presence of a pharmacist. His findings add more
evidence to support the concern that allowing a pharmacy to operate in
the absence of a pharmacist would constitute a risk to the public.
Officers of the PDA recently attended a number of informal Department of
Health consultations on the Health Act (which contains the remote supervision
idea) and were encouraged to learn that the DoH has decided not to pursue
remote supervision at this stage, concentrating instead on implementing
the concept of the responsible pharmacist. However, there is still talk
about the possibility of deploying remote supervision at some later stage.
As many pharmacists will know, the PDA has campaigned and continues to
campaign to ensure that remote supervision becomes no more than a far distant
prospect. At our recent annual conference, we announced that, in the event
that remote supervision was to be actively pursued, then we would be organising
a significant publicity campaign to bring the unacceptable consequences
of these proposals to the attention of the Government and the public.
We must not allow these flawed proposals to proceed because they represent
a danger to the public. We ask the leaders of our profession to ensure
that they do not inadvertently allow patient safety to be compromised by
giving tacit support to them.
Mark Koziol
Chairman
Pharmacists’ Defence Association |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal