| • White Paper
• Patient records
• Electronic prescribing
• Pharmacy contract
• Community pharmacy
• Medicines use reviews
• Minor ailment scheme
• Medication errors
• English Pharmacy Board
• Council election
• Education
• Public relations
• New professional body
• The Society (2)
• Euthanasia (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Community pharmacy
100- hour pharmacies are wasteful of time
From Dr P. J. Brown, FRPharmS
In addition to the concerns about 100-hour pharmacies raised in the
White
Paper I would add the issue of the efficient use of pharmacists
employed in them.
As indicated in advertisements for staff in The Journal, a 100-hour pharmacy
requires the employment of three pharmacists to maintain a six-day 16-hour
service, or a seven-day 14-hour service.
While on weekdays the 9am to 6pm period is likely to be busy, because that
is when most repeat prescriptions and walk-in prescriptions are dispensed,
the out-of-hours service, when doctors’ surgeries are closed, will be
far less so, other than for the sale of pharmacy medicines.
I would guess that in a 100-hour pharmacy, 45 hours would be at “full
speed”, 20 hours would be at “half speed”, and the remaining
35 hours would be at “tick-over” pace. At a time when there is
a chronic shortage of pharmacists to provide the services during the busy periods,
can we really afford to have significant numbers of pharmacists sitting around
doing little for much of the time in 100-hour pharmacies, and is this something
that professionals really want to do?
The general view is that in most cases the 100-hour pharmacy contract exemption
is being used merely for supposed commercial gain. I say “supposed” because
one cannot see how, other than in exceptional circumstances, three pharmacists
together costing in excess of £150,000 a year can deliver a commercially
viable service, particularly one which meets the aims and objectives of the
Department of Health and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.
I have yet to see convincing evidence that the introduction of 100-hour pharmacies
has significantly improved the provision of pharmaceutical services and care
to patients. In the absence of this evidence one is left with the conclusion
that they are wasteful of professional pharmacist time and energies, offer
no competitive advantages and should be scrapped forthwith.
If we want to improve the range, scope and quality of pharmacy services, we
certainly do not need the formulaic approach that is currently employed. In
its place we need a system where new pharmacy contracts are justified fairly
and squarely on the basis of patient need. Those who seek such contracts would
be required to provide clear evidence of significant unmet patient need and
demand that will be provided on the basis of fair economic competition.
Philip J. Brown
Weybridge, Surrey
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal