Pseudoephedrine: from P to POM?

[N.T]

Just thought I'd make you all aware of this:

The MHRA are proposing to restrict the availability of medicines
containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine by a change to legal status from Pharmacy (P) to prescription only (POM), together with a restriction in pack size in the UK in the light of reports of misuse of these substances in the manufacture of the Class A controlled drug methylamphetamine. A legal status change may be effected by an amendment to the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Order 1997 (the POM Order) or by changing the legal status on the marketing authorisations (MAs).


What do you all think of this?

An over-reaction? (Exactly how many reports of meth manufacture have there been compared with total pseudoephedrine sales?)

Or protecting public safety?

You can feedback to the MHRA here: Feedback to current consultation documents

[Pharmanaut]

Just thought I'd make you all aware of this:

The MHRA are proposing to restrict the availability of medicines
containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine by a change to legal status from Pharmacy (P) to prescription only (POM), together with a restriction in pack size in the UK in the light of reports of misuse of these substances in the manufacture of the Class A controlled drug methylamphetamine. A legal status change may be effected by an amendment to the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Order 1997 (the POM Order) or by changing the legal status on the marketing authorisations (MAs).


What do you all think of this?

An over-reaction? (Exactly how many reports of meth manufacture have there been compared with total pseudoephedrine sales?)

Or protecting public safety?

You can feedback to the MHRA here: Feedback to current consultation documents

Probably a knee-jerk reaction.
I thought they where including ephedrine as well?
I have suggested that they do this temporarily. When the illegal market has moved on they can relax controls again.

[Jeff]

What do you all think of this?

An over-reaction? (Exactly how many reports of meth manufacture have there been compared with total pseudoephedrine sales?)

Or protecting public safety?

You can feedback to the MHRA here: Feedback to current consultation documents

Pharmacy is unable to control the sale and abuse of P medicines - hence the appearance of groups such as
OverCount
and
www.solpadeinehelp.org.uk

What we need is a new classification of Pharmacy Registed medicines that may only be sold to patients registered with that pharmacy.
Record keeping and controls to be modelled on the Scottish Minor Ailments Scheme
NHS Education for Scotland (NES) - Pharmacy - Implementation of the Minor Ailment Service

The RPSGB should see this consultation as an opportunity to improve both pharmacy and patient care.
Bet they don't though.

Jeff

[Cymraes]

In Australia pharmacists are suspended for selling too much pseudoephedrine. I agree that we should look into another "level" of P as they do in Australia. We should have to record such purchases in the PMR system as with POM meds.

The problem with the MHRA changing the classification is that it is not going to solve the problem, as I believe at present most of the supply comes from theft of the drug as opposed to Mr Dodgy walking around all the pharmacists in the area asking for pots of 100 sudafed in order to get enough to make it worth his while. On that note - if asked for 100 sudafed would you politely point to pack of 24 anyway? As I was aware of the problem via Oz I record sales of over 24 sudafed in the PMR. NB - this has occured once.

[Pharmanaut]

In Australia pharmacists are suspended for selling too much pseudoephedrine. I agree that we should look into another "level" of P as they do in Australia. We should have to record such purchases in the PMR system as with POM meds.

The problem with the MHRA changing the classification is that it is not going to solve the problem, as I believe at present most of the supply comes from theft of the drug as opposed to Mr Dodgy walking around all the pharmacists in the area asking for pots of 100 sudafed in order to get enough to make it worth his while. On that note - if asked for 100 sudafed would you politely point to pack of 24 anyway? As I was aware of the problem via Oz I record sales of over 24 sudafed in the PMR. NB - this has occured once.

Must be people working as a team gathering enough together to produce a batch. Must be worth the time and trouble to some people to do this.

[kemzero]

[QUOTE=N.T;4971]Just thought I'd make you all aware of this:

The MHRA are proposing to restrict the availability of medicines
containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine by a change to legal status from Pharmacy (P) to prescription only (POM), together with a restriction in pack size in the UK in the light of reports of misuse of these substances in the manufacture of the Class A controlled drug methylamphetamine. A legal status change may be effected by an amendment to the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Order 1997 (the POM Order) or by changing the legal status on the marketing authorisations (MAs).


What do you all think of this?

An over-reaction? (Exactly how many reports of meth manufacture have there been compared with total pseudoephedrine sales?)

Or protecting public safety?

I think it is an absolute disgrace
Pharmacists can't be trusted to sell pseudoehedrine responsibly... its obvious that the authorities that matter don't take us seriously ..

The Society, The English Board & the NPA are doing a roadshow very soon; promoting the absence of the p'cist from chemists and enhancing the profile of pharmacy support staff.... don't know the ins and outs but it doesn't sound goodfor the image of pharmacy as a whole particularly with this P to POM switch

[Pharmanaut]

[QUOTE=kemzero;5078]

Just thought I'd make you all aware of this:

The MHRA are proposing to restrict the availability of medicines
containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine by a change to legal status from Pharmacy (P) to prescription only (POM), together with a restriction in pack size in the UK in the light of reports of misuse of these substances in the manufacture of the Class A controlled drug methylamphetamine. A legal status change may be effected by an amendment to the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Order 1997 (the POM Order) or by changing the legal status on the marketing authorisations (MAs).


What do you all think of this?

An over-reaction? (Exactly how many reports of meth manufacture have there been compared with total pseudoephedrine sales?)

Or protecting public safety?

I think it is an absolute disgrace
Pharmacists can't be trusted to sell pseudoehedrine responsibly... its obvious that the authorities that matter don't take us seriously ..

The Society, The English Board & the NPA are doing a roadshow very soon; promoting the absence of the p'cist from chemists and enhancing the profile of pharmacy support staff.... don't know the ins and outs but it doesn't sound goodfor the image of pharmacy as a whole particularly with this P to POM switch

The absence thing is more than that - its about personal control of the pharmacy. I'm sure the multiples are looking at getting a pharmacist to control more than one pharmacy, either remotely or 'rotational visits' throughout the day. It will be of particular use to those companies that run pharmacies who cannot get regular managers. Perhaps they should look at themselves and ask why no-one wants to work for them on a permanent basis? You can't just keep on taking the money out.

[johnep]

Anyone who works in retail will know the attitude to costs. Keep cutting staff hours, never any pens, scissors, note paper etc. yesterday did, with dispenser. 664 items. Major problem was only one cptr for everything, trays, homes etc and because it was so old, very slow. The office cptr where I had to input my hours was even worse, taking several minutes to respond to a click--just that hourglass rotating and a pop up saying 'working'.

apparently HO has the very latest cptrs and they expect procedures that run on these to be carried out on the geriatric cptr at the branch.

remote supervision will be promoted as an opportunity for the pharmacist to do upto 8 MURs a day or face being replaced by cctv.

We are witnessing the last days of the fall of the Roman(Pharmaceutical) empire and those that the Gods(CCA) wish to destroy, they first make mad.
johnep

[Linnear]

Please note The English Board have looked at this paper but have nothing to do with what has already been written.

The papers at the moment state that the pharmacist should only be in control of ONE pharmacy and only leave UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Also one of the first sentences states that the SUPERINTENDENT PHARMACIST will be ultimately responsible.


I asked that these provisos be carved in stone so that unscrupulous head offices can't force pharmacists to go out while on duty.

The writers said that they had already thought of this and this is why they had it written in.

This document as it stands does not signal remote supervision and I will be doing all I can to ensure that it never does.

[N.T]

The papers at the moment state that the pharmacist should only be in control of ONE pharmacy and only leave UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

Also one of the first sentences states that the SUPERINTENDENT PHARMACIST will be ultimately responsible.

I asked that these provisos be carved in stone so that unscrupulous head offices can't force pharmacists to go out while on duty.

Unfortunately, I feel 'exceptional circumstances' would be open to interpretation by some (all?) unscrupulous non-pharmacist managerial staff. Let's face it, at the moment EU laws regarding breaks are being broken/ignored/carefully covered by contract so who's to say this law won't be ignored/bent for convenience.

Linnear - I think a definition of what DOES NOT constitute 'exceptional circumstances' needs to be included in the document. (Obviously, it's a lot more difficult to define what DOES constitute 'exceptional circumstances'). If examples such as lunch cover in another store/managerial meetings/covering the photo counter (joke...maybe?)/not bothering to book locums to save money were included as NOT being 'exceptional circumstances' then locums/good pharmacist mangers will not be taken advantage of by unscrupulous head offices/non-pharmacist managers.

Linnear, I would be happy to write a more coherant argument, with reference points and research, should you need it for the next EPB meeting. I'm guessing you've got a lot of working/writing to do, so will be happy to help in any way.