Hope for dispensing GP practices!!

[Pharmanaut]

Yes, in that heirarchy of horribles, even DDs will be placing patient care higher up the agenda than the multinationals.

As Captain Aubrey said... "its the lesser of two weevils".

A toast...
"Wive and sweethearts; may they never meet".

[Jeff]

Yes, in that heirarchy of horribles, even DDs will be placing patient care higher up the agenda than the multinationals.

Severakl years ago Unichem brought a case against DDs ages ago - arguing that supervision rules should apply to DDs in the same way they applied to pharmacists. Unichem lost. (I can't find the reference)
As I recall the judgement was that GPs had a responsibility of care to patients that a body corporate lacked.

I believe that to be a fair judgement

Jeff

[Pharmanaut]

Severakl years ago Unichem brought a case against DDs ages ago - arguing that supervision rules should apply to DDs in the same way they applied to pharmacists. Unichem lost. (I can't find the reference)
As I recall the judgement was that GPs had a responsibility of care to patients that a body corporate lacked.

I believe that to be a fair judgement

Jeff

Which is why pharmacists are kept outside of the 'big tepee'.

[Jeff]

No - it's a valid reason for keeping corporate bodies out - not for keeping pharmacists out.

A body representing pharmacists could have used that as an argument for independent pharmacies or practice partnerships.

However no such body existed.

A few GPs saw a threat of corporate take over years ago - and in order to counteract that threat invented the practice pharmacist - thinking that a professional alliance was a better defence.
A letter to the PJ described them as doctors handmaidens

The mantra pharmacy mantra that prescribing and dispensing MUST be kept separate has held back the profession for years.

How will the discontinuation of Beclazone be handled?
GP's will press a button and you are left with stock on the shelf.
GP's don't quite get round to it until stocks are exhausted and you have to keep referring them back.
You run down your stock and then only order after the script arrives.
In a sensible (cost/effective) world this should be managed at the pharmacy.
Run out and then press the button to alter all future scripts for your patients.
But no - the pharmacists mantra again - prescribing and dispensing MUST run independently.

The two ARE interdependent - why keep up the pretence?

[Pharmanaut]

The two ARE interdependent - why keep up the pretence?

So a new way of working is needed.
How can that be done now that we are all corporate employees?

[SolomonQ]

i'm not a big fan of the EU but I think the only way out of this would be a EU directive/legislation which will compel pharmacies to be run in a more continental style, i.e. ownership by pharmacists.

The community pharmacy sector in the UK is run in a very commercial way, in a country with the NHS as the cornerstone of healthcare this shouldn't be so. The amount of pressure being applied from the non-pharmacy arm (or should that be body) is quite substantial on the practice of pharmacists they employ e.g. MURs.

[Pharmanaut]

i'm not a big fan of the EU but I think the only way out of this would be a EU directive/legislation which will compel pharmacies to be run in a more continental style, i.e. ownership by pharmacists.

The community pharmacy sector in the UK is run in a very commercial way, in a country with the NHS as the cornerstone of healthcare this shouldn't be so. The amount of pressure being applied from the non-pharmacy arm (or should that be body) is quite substantial on the practice of pharmacists they employ e.g. MURs.

The EU has done some good things and bad things.
One good thing is that we have loads more employee rights than other NON-EU countries.
You can also invoke the working time directive etc.
If you think the USA is great, visit Jim Plagakis website.

[ramroum]

i'm not a big fan of the EU but I think the only way out of this would be a EU directive/legislation which will compel pharmacies to be run in a more continental style, i.e. ownership by pharmacists.

The community pharmacy sector in the UK is run in a very commercial way, in a country with the NHS as the cornerstone of healthcare this shouldn't be so. The amount of pressure being applied from the non-pharmacy arm (or should that be body) is quite substantial on the practice of pharmacists they employ e.g. MURs.

I 100% agree.

[SolomonQ]

thanks to ramroum for sharing your opinion on this forum

Btw, this is not just day dreaming and fairy tales, impossible in the real world, this could easily be done by a process consisting of a sequence of demergers.

As we are pharmacists lets think of this as cell division, especially that of bacteria, which is an excellent analogy and model for what I am trying to illustrate. e.g. one multiple could divide into two smaller organisations, which then divide into further organisations, this gradual process woud mean that a pharmacy group consisting of 1000 pharmacies only requires 10 levels of demergers to get to single pharmacy organisations.

Other similarities also exist. After the demergers, the different pharmacies could learn best practices from each other just like bacteria become resistant to antibiotics by exchange of plasmids. Also, bacteria are individual organisms, which are alive in their own right, most can survive on their own but many form things like biofilms and colony grroups for better survival i.e. pharmacies could group together to obtain the best discount from wholesalers, this kinda already happenns but because of the multiple groups the biofilm formed by independents is very thin and and weak and iseasily broken/destroyed...

finally some bacteria even live with other organism in symbiosis just like pharmacists can live in symbiosis with the medical profession in this model, and not be regarded as opportunistic bacteria that most some doctors, especially DDs take pharmacists to be.

P.S. As pharmacists, im sure people can ignore the negative connotations the concept of bacteria holds in the minds of lay non-healthcare folk. i.e. dirty, unwanted, undesirable etc.... even bacteria do alot of good

[Tony Schofield]

Severakl years ago Unichem brought a case against DDs ages ago - arguing that supervision rules should apply to DDs in the same way they applied to pharmacists. Unichem lost. (I can't find the reference)
As I recall the judgement was that GPs had a responsibility of care to patients that a body corporate lacked.

I believe that to be a fair judgement

Jeff

The judgment was that the doctor took responsibility for the dispensing of prescriptions rather like a solicitor takes responsibility for the conveyancing in his practice. The judge said that the doctor was responsible for the quality of his staff etc and would be held responsible for the outcomes of their work without having to pysically dispense themselves. Of course, doctors being able to sign death certificates was a source of comfort to the medical profession............?

Pharmacists were put out at the time because they felt they could take responsibility without having to physically assemble everything. This was the reason I was so supportive of the Reponsible Pharmacist "project" and still believe, suitably tweaked to consider the specific requirements of locum pharmacists, that the responsible pharmacist scenario is the way to progress.

I don't remember anything about a doctor having a higher duty of care that a body corporate lacked and as GPs are now being encouraged to become body corporates (private companies being invited to tender for APMS contracts) it is even less relevant.