Int J Pharm Pract 2002:10:77-83
Centre for Practice and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University of London,
Brunswick Square, London, England WC1N 1AX
Richard O’Neill, LLB, PhD, lecturer in pharmacy practice
Emma Rowley, BSc, MSc, research assistant
Felicity Smith, BPharm, PhD, reader in pharmacy practice
Correspondence: Dr O’Neill
richard.c.oneill@ntlworld.com
Int J Pharm Pract 2002:10:77-83
Original Papers
The emergency supply of prescription-only medicines: a survey of requests to community pharmacists and their views on the procedures
Richard O'Neill, Emma Rowley and Felicity Smith
Objectives — The provisions of the Medicines Act for the emergency supply of prescription-only medicines (POMs) represent circumstances in which pharmacists in the UK may lawfully supply a patient with a POM without having a prescription. The objectives of this research were to establish the frequency of requests for emergency supplies from doctors and patients, and the characteristics of the requests, to investigate the procedures for emergency supply from the perspective of community pharmacists and to survey their views on the subject.Method — Data were gathered in a self-administered structured postal questionnaire. The sample comprised community pharmacists in three health authority areas in Greater London and the surrounding area.
Key findings — Over two-thirds of the 243 respondents reported receiving requests for emergency supplies of POMs from patients at least monthly. The most commonly requested items were inhalers for asthma, followed by medication for cardiovascular disease. Many pharmacists had refused to make supplies on the basis that the situation did not constitute an emergency and/or that a prescription could be obtained. They also experienced cases in which they doubted the suitability of the requested product. Over half of the respondents reported receiving at least monthly requests from doctors to dispense an emergency supply. Refusals to supply were most commonly because the requested product was a Controlled Drug and therefore disallowed. Most respondents believed that the emergency supply procedures provided an opportunity to exercise professional judgment and were an important “safety net” for patients.
Discussion — The provisions for the emergency supply of medicines are a common resort of both prescribers and patients and present pharmacists with an opportunity to exercise professional judgment. However, many pharmacists considered the procedures restrictive, believing that they should have more discretion in supplying POMs to regular patients and their representatives.
Conclusion — Professional developments as envisaged by the British government and the pharmacy profession will require greater flexibility regarding the arrangements for supply of POMs.