Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NO to remote supervision

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NO to remote supervision

    The pharmacy consultation paper available on the DoH website has alot to be read between the lines. After reading the hot topics on "one pharmacy, one responsible pharmacist" section - you find it saying "however, on some occasion a pharmacist MAY have to be responsible for more than one pharmacy in SOME CIRCUMSTANCES"... now whats that all about.

    If you read all of the consultation you feel this vibe, as to which way the government wants to be going in - and thats one responsible pharmacist for more than one pharmacy. Does anyone else feel these vibes??

    I feel although the government is dangling the carrot of expanding our roles as to leaving the pharmacy for defined hours (without them actually defining why we might be leaving).. i believe, amongst others, that this is a stepping stone towards "remote supervision" where a RP is responsible for more than one pharmacy!! Severely threatening our jobs, and the health of the public.

    Therefore I have created a petition to force the Prim Minister to put an end to this, please click the link and read the details before agreeing and signing. Pass the message.

    Petition to: stop any legislation allowing a responsible pharmacist to be absent from the pharmacy, or to be responsible for more than one pharmacy in any circumstance.

    AMO

  • #2
    Re: NO to remote supervision

    Signed up immediately.

    One of my princples is that running one pharmacy is a full-time job. Running two is two full time jobs. One full-time job = 1 pharmacist.
    47 BC : Julius Cesar : Veni Vidi Vici : I came, I saw I conquered.
    2018 AD : Modern Man : I shopped, I clicked, I collected.
    How times change.

    If you find you have read something that has upset or offended you an anyway please unread it at once.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: NO to remote supervision

      [QUOTE ]One of my princples is that running one pharmacy is a full-time job. Running two is two full time jobs. One full-time job = 1 pharmacist.[/QUOTE]

      Could not agree more but suspect that once the multiples/government get their influential hands on this one (plus the question of checking technicians) that the writing will really be on the wall for pharmacists)

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: NO to remote supervision

        Originally posted by ymdawd View Post
        [QUOTE ]One of my princples is that running one pharmacy is a full-time job. Running two is two full time jobs. One full-time job = 1 pharmacist.
        Could not agree more but suspect that once the multiples/government get their influential hands on this one (plus the question of checking technicians) that the writing will really be on the wall for pharmacists)[/QUOTE]

        Well, lets start planning our escape strategy - any suggestions?
        47 BC : Julius Cesar : Veni Vidi Vici : I came, I saw I conquered.
        2018 AD : Modern Man : I shopped, I clicked, I collected.
        How times change.

        If you find you have read something that has upset or offended you an anyway please unread it at once.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: NO to remote supervision

          Damn right.

          Email this to every pharmacist you know.

          Also when you send in NPSA reports (you are all doing this I hope) about all the dodgy GP prescribing put a remark in that this would have got to the patient under remote supervision. ACTs are very good at accuracy checking but cannot do a clinical check. So if doctor writes Tamoxifen 40mg 1tds (as one did today) the ACT would make sure that that is exactly what the patient got!

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: NO to remote supervision

            hi peeps, glad u all feel the same - but its about spreading the word, u know how we pharmacists are to laid back and nevr get involved? let ur friends know on msn, hotmail and facebook - they dnt av to be pharmacists to sign up! and deadline for petition is 3 months... april 08.....

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: NO to remote supervision

              Originally posted by Web Ferret View Post
              Damn right.

              Email this to every pharmacist you know.

              Also when you send in NPSA reports (you are all doing this I hope) about all the dodgy GP prescribing put a remark in that this would have got to the patient under remote supervision. ACTs are very good at accuracy checking but cannot do a clinical check. So if doctor writes Tamoxifen 40mg 1tds (as one did today) the ACT would make sure that that is exactly what the patient got!
              Thats the frightening thing about EPS. Picture this scenario....
              The 'clinical check' will be done on the GP system so the dispensing side will be a "pass through" system and only require an accuracy check from an ACT. This will satisfy the NPSA that dispensing is correct. But it won't work unless there is a massive data cleansing exercise on the GP system to eliminate all the things we as pharmacists trap now. Once that is done, someone will need to keep on top of it to make sure that the data remains clinically correct and appropriate. Will this be the new role for pharmacists I wonder?
              Currently a GP has to sign all prescriptions. In EPS there will be a digital signature. Does this mean that only the GP can authorise a repeat when they are logged on, or will the practice staff just pump out repeats with no clinical staff seeing them? In this case we are needed more than ever.
              47 BC : Julius Cesar : Veni Vidi Vici : I came, I saw I conquered.
              2018 AD : Modern Man : I shopped, I clicked, I collected.
              How times change.

              If you find you have read something that has upset or offended you an anyway please unread it at once.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: NO to remote supervision

                its clear the government is trying to devalue the pharmacy profession and at a huge risk... and thats the general public. i hate to say it, but when someone dies - which seems inevitable - as these receptionists like to whack the "re-print" button (or "send" in the EPS system), and these ACTs are not the best brains in the world lets admit... then they will realise. and i look forward to grind into the government on that day.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: NO to remote supervision

                  All the ACTs I have met are excellent.
                  But they check accuracy NOT clinical content.

                  We all know that untrained receptionists whack out scripts and drs don't read what they are signing. You need a minimum qualification to be able to dispense - you need nothing to be a receptionist.

                  NPSA - National Patient Safety Association.
                  To report any patient safety incident - Most pharmacists think its just for dispensing errors - WRONG you can (and must) report GPs errors that you pick up - you can do it anonymously but always ensure your local PCT gets a copy.

                  https://www.eforms.npsa.nhs.uk/staffeform/

                  I report a few GP serious errors each week.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: NO to remote supervision

                    Originally posted by Web Ferret View Post
                    All the ACTs I have met are excellent.
                    But they check accuracy NOT clinical content.
                    ACTs will probably have to take the whole burden when a pharmacist is not there. They will not cope. They couldnt give advice on some minor ailments as well as we can. OK, maybe some are good but have you worked for any of the supermarkets such as asda, morrisons, tesco yet? their churning out ACTs as fast as bread on the market floor.

                    These ACT wana-bes have not even had a yeards experience yet and they have done their healthcare and level 2..and currently working on an integrated "level 3+ACT" course now available from buttercups.

                    so lets work this out, a girl working at the bakery dept at asda at 16yr old. gets into the pharmacy and passes her health care and level 2 (dispensing course) within 8 months - which some of them already have..then straight on to becoming an ACT...and she becomes one at the age of 19/20?

                    she then has ultimate responsibility with such little experience and fast-tract training... OUTRAGEOUS...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: NO to remote supervision

                      Just out of curiosity-
                      would a computer system spot a Bard Biocath Aquamatic prefilled catheter Female length being prescribed to a male patient? Because the receptionist, the GP, and the dispensers never did...
                      Ze genuine Article, present & perfect!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: NO to remote supervision

                        It seems all ACTs are not the same then.
                        Mine had 3 days at University, had to check 1000 items without incident then pass a very difficult test devised by me.

                        I didn't realize there was a fast track, collect the tokens off the [email protected] packet course!

                        May each and every "god" help us. Its gonna take allah, jesus, buddah and a few jedi knights to save us!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: NO to remote supervision

                          lol that was quite funny actually.

                          pleas let ur frends, relatives, customers, delivery drivers, bin men, laudrette lady! and every 1 else knw about THE PETITION... happy days.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: NO to remote supervision

                            My primary concern is patient safety....if remote supervision gets the green light, this will be severely compromised.

                            I have to admit I've been beating the winter blues on other forums recently hence haven't
                            had the time to post on the "best pharmacy site in town

                            ...on a more serious note, Pharmacy practice has to improve , and it wouldn't with remote supervision
                            Today a patient came in complaining of severe headache and terrible muscle ache...guess what she had been prescribed Pravasatatin 40mg and Inergy 10/40 and had been using both for over a week....GP , pharmacist didn't pick it up.....an ACT/Tech would not have a hope in hell in picking it up (apologies to those ACTs who might , as most do go to UNI and are into CPD,)

                            To be honest patient safety is paramount , although I am not 100% pro-remote supervision, I believe quality will always prevail hence a good pharmacist is a good pharmacist whilst a bog standard can't be bovverred pharmacist is just as good as an ACT##no offence intended
                            Kemzo the pharmacist forumly known as kemzero

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: NO to remote supervision

                              Report it to the NPSA with a note about remote supervision allowing this to go unnoticed.

                              I had warfarin 5mg and 500mcg on the same script today. What advice would the ACT have given?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X