| • The profession (3)
• NPC (3)
• Community pharmacy
• Prescription pricing
• Wholesaling
• Anticoagulation
• Dispensing
• The Society (3)
• Regulation
• Fees consultation (2)
• Retention fees (2)
• Listening friends
• The Journal
Letters to the Editor
|
Community pharmacy
Report of Ramadan stop-smoking campaign was misleading
From Mr D. Kent, MRPharmS
Your report on the Ramadan
Stop Smoking Campaign in Camden (PJ, 8 September,
p252) contains certain inaccuracies which need correcting and raises
other issues of which community pharmacies should be aware.
It is not true that “all 49 pharmacies in Camden have been invited
to take part”. In fact there are 63 pharmacies in Camden and invitations
to participate have been received by no more than a few of them and then
only to display publicity material. The unnamed primary care trust spokeswoman,
whose identity I have been unable to ascertain, states that the initiative
is not an enhanced service and therefore the local pharmaceutical committee
was not involved, and then goes on to state that the LPC failed to respond
to a tender for applications to provide the service. How the LPC is expected
to respond to an application to provide a service it did not know existed
I fail to comprehend.
The LPC was only aware of the initiative commissioned from Greenlight
Pharmacy and commended it, but this is as far as the LPC knowledge went.
I can categorically state that no information on any wider
initiative has ever been received by the LPC.
A more worrying issue is the pushing of the boundaries of the new pharmacy
contractual framework either with or without the knowledge and consent
of the LPC — any LPC. I am sure that this is not just an issue
for Camden and Islington.
Contractors must question any approach by their
PCT which is not confirmed by the LPC; this LPC is willing jointly
to sign any PCT document where agreement has been reached. Lack of such
a countersignature must lead to alarm bells ringing. Contractors are
urged to contact their LPC office to check the status of approaches
not
previously notified to them by their LPC.
The PJ regularly puts contentious statements from correspondents
to bodies which may have an alternative view. Why was this not done
in this case?
The first I knew of any involvement wider than Greenlight Pharmacy
was when a PJ journalist telephoned me for my views and, it
would appear, then went back to the PCT for comment and accepted that
comment, from
an unnamed source, at face value and published it as fact. David Kent
Secretary
Camden and Islington Local Pharmaceutical Committee
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal