|
• White Paper (5)
• Pseudoephedrine (2)
• Eczema
• Chemotherapy
• Community pharmacy (2)
• Locum pharmacy
• Packaging
• Dispensing
• MDS
• Parallel imports
• Prescription charges
• The Society
• Skill mix
• Professionalism
• Boots travel insurance
Letters to the Editor
|
Community pharmacy
Prescribe, dispense and reimburse in multiples of seven
From Mrs D. Bland, RegPharmTech
There is one simple answer to the problem of snipping foil strips of
tablets and capsules, highlighted by David
Thomas (PJ, 17 March, p308).
All packages, whether foil strips or plastic bottles should contain only
multiples of seven tablets or capsules and prescribers should be directed
only to prescribe in multiples of seven.
If only such amounts were reimbursed, maybe the problem would be resolved.
Since most surgeries issue repeat prescriptions for 28 days only I am
sure it would be so simple to implement. But why do some manufacturers
continue to pack in 30s and 60s when the push has been for 28-day prescriptions
for several years now?
Diane Bland
Alford,
Lincolnshire
My advice is never influenced by money
From Mrs J. Kember, MRPharmS
I am sure I will be supported by many of my colleagues in community
pharmacies in expressing my annoyance at Chris Brewer’s comments
about polypharmacy (PJ, 7 April, p394). I am deeply insulted by his implication
that community pharmacists fail to tackle polypharmacy and tailor their
medicines use reviews to promote commercial interests. My decision to
recommend or advise a patient on treatment and health care is not based
on the need to make a sale. Indeed advice is frequently not followed
by a sale. Any recommendation concerning a prescription or an MUR is
not tempered by a need to emerge with a profit over and above the £25
fee and neither is any recommendation made to a GP based on maintaining
or increasing the number of items I dispense.
The advice that I offer my patients and customers is never influenced
by commerce. It is based on my professional training, professional development
and 27 years of professional experience. Like many of my retail colleagues,
I often support this, not with a 10-minute drug history taking, which
may be all that is available in hospital, but through a long-standing
patient/pharmacist relationship built on weeks, months and often years
of contact.
Having worked both in primary and secondary health care, I am aware of
the rift there has been between pharmacists in the two sectors but the
relationship between them has been improving. Many pharmacists on both “sides” have
put a lot of effort into this and into improving the seamless care which
should be available to patients. Comments such as Mr Brewer’s could
harm this relationship significantly.
The only legitimate point he makes with respect to commerce and professional
roles is one shared by many pharmacists who are unhappy with the way
in which the MUR service has developed. There is huge pressure on pharmacists,
particularly those working for the larger multiples, to fulfil an increasing
quota of MURs, and this is related to commercial viability. Many of us
believe that we should be allowed to chose whether to carry out an MUR,
based purely on a professional decision. The fee gained by performing
an MUR should be a bonus, not essential for financial viability.
Joanne Kember
Wrexham,
Clwyd
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal