Pharmacy Rules

So Lloyds Pharmacy and Bupa have already have their interpretations of the RP regulations brought into question by the RPSGB (PJ Online article below)

http://www.pjonline.com/news/pda_claims_rp_rules_are_being_interpreted_unfairly

I guess that this was always going to happen with any new working practices but it will be interesting to see how the RPSGB respond. The problems have been highlighted by the PDA who suggest that the Society may have changed the RP guidelines in favour of the multiples. I hope that this was not done intentionally and that the multiples wouldn’t “place” people on the council to make sure their commercial interests are represented ahead of the professional interests of their employee pharmacists. Maybe I’m being niave  to think they wouldn’t as their main objective is to maximise shareholder (or owner) return. Linking this to the recent European Court Ruling

http://www.pjonline.com/forum/pharmacy_ownership_0

The PDA have shown that they are acting in the interest of the individual pharmacist. Is this an example of how a leopard never changes it’s spots and that the new PLB will still put bricks-and-mortar pharmacies ahead of flesh-and-blood pharmacist as it always seems to have done. I hope it isn’t because if it is, why should i join it?

You should find a copy of the email from mark Kalziol of the PDA blow. It’s pretty self-explanatory:

The PDA’s campaign to persuade the government to reconsider the
Responsible Pharmacist regulations and to delay their implementation is
gathering momentum. We have now written to the government requesting a
formal meeting and we are also arranging meetings with a number of
influential MP’s.

Key to the success of this initiative, is that we will need to provide
evidence to government to show the extent of the problem.

Already we have received more than 2,000 responses to our electronic
survey and a recently launched petition calling for a delay of the
implementation of the regulations has produced 600 responses.

However, we need even more responses if we are to improve our chances of
success.

We therefore urgently appeal to members who have not yet participated in
the survey or the petition to do so as quickly as possible.

Complete the Survey: http://www.the-pda.org/newsviews/nv_survey1.html?id=441

Sign the Petition: http://www.gopetition.com/online/29439.html

Regards

Mark Koziol

Chairman, The Pharmacists’ Defence Association

The Old Firestation
69 Albion Street
Birmingham
B1 3EA

Tel: 0121 694 7000
Fax: 0121 694 7001

After the initial media frenzy, all seems to have gone quiet on the Swine flu front. However when you look at the data, it looks like the incidence of confirmed cases is accelerating. The BBC reported today that globally 10,000 cases have now been reported with some really acute increases – 79 confirmed in Japan over the weekend.

Locum Pharmacists need to be aware of the symptoms of swine flu, especially in holiday makers returning from Mexico and the southern states of USA.

Link to NHS guidance on swine flu symptoms below

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Pandemic-flu/Pages/Symptoms.aspx

I’ve being using the time i have due my incapacitation to read through the responsible pharmacist toolkit. (Mine arrived on Friday) To be honest, apart from the bureaucratic changes in terms of the need to sign in as the responsible pharmacist when required, I don’t see things changing too dramatically after 1st October. The only thing that does change is that pharmacy staff are able to sell GSL’s in the absence of the pharmacists (as long as the absence if for less that two hours) which is long over due.

The toolkit does answer allay many of the questions I had about responsible pharmacist regulations and has a very good section for locums. As someone who is usually only too happy to knock the RPSGB, I have to say that they have done a good job this time. I particularly like the personalised “responsible pharmacist sign” and “notice for pharmacy staff”

I think more fundamental changes will occur after the changes to supervision that are likely to happen in 2011.

Link to online responsible pharmacist toolkit below

Responsible pharmacist online toolkit

So the Chief Medical Officer thinks we should set a minimum tax level for each unit of alchohol. 50p is his figure. In theory I think it’s a good idea but I also understand the argument put forward by the opponents of the plan i.e. that it’s not fair on those of us who drink sensibly and in moderation. After all, we all know the drinks that cause most of the problems.

My suggestion is that we do increase tax levels but only on those drinks we know are consumed for the sole reason of getting off-your-face as quickly as possible i.e. cheap white ciders, super strength lagers and what used to called alchopops. People don’t drink these products because they enjoy the taste. They are bought for the sole purpose of getting drunk as quickly as possible. I would either tax these products to the hilt or even ban them. What about all the jobs that would be lost I hear you cry? Well the same breweries could be used to produce good quality, lower alcohol drinks that people might enjoy. From a business point of view it makes sense; instead of having a product that people only consume from the age of 15-18 why not produce a product that consumers can enjoy all their lives?

Working in a prison service pharmacy I see scripts for newly imprisoned alchoholics every day. I bet if I asked them what they drink it wouldn’t be a nice  1983 Saint Emilion, but the off-you-head-as-quick-as-can products mentioned above.

Cheers!