[buddy7]

People in the UK with minor ailments could receive treatment from their local pharmacy, rather than going to their GP(Doctor) if government proposal unveiled in April 2009 go ahead, a move that it estimates will save the NHS(National health service) hundred of millions of pounds.

If goes through, pharmacists will be prescribing medicine for coughs, colds, headaches, health screening and vaccinations, they will also be encouraged to become healthy living centres, that support people with long-term conditions including diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure and eczema.

If people with these conditions went to a pharmacy instead of a GP(Doctor) the NHS could save £400m by the year 2011.
They say pharmacists have much to offer people with diabetes.

However there is a need, both GPs and pharmacists work together, and offer an integrated care, for example by making sure results of test conducted in a pharmacy would be effectively communicated to the GP, also pharmacists should only be asked to take on a role, for which they have received adequate training.

What worries me about this new role, it will be difficult to implement manage and police, a platform for abuse by all concern, who takes full responsibility when there is a cock-up.

Is this, yet another mad idea by our government? whats your views posters.

B/7 ESSEX UK.

[georgepds]

I don't know... how bad can it be. I see my GP once a year, and he does not even look at me since they went digital (spends his time with me with his nose in his laptop). I'm thinking of dribbling blood out me ear next time to see if he even notices. That or requesting a digital a prostate exam.

The pharmacist, at least, looks at me, and would notice if anything was falling off or the like.

--g

[Tiger Lily]

https://pharmacists.ab.ca/newlegisla...ackground.aspx

Pharmacists in Alberta have been allowed to prescribe meds since last year

having said this, the only thing my pharmacist has prescribed for me was test strips when my refill had run out (i hadn't noticed that)

i'm heading out on vacation soon.......... it will be nice to ask the pharmacist for some Bactroban in case of an injury, rather than having to travel to the next town to sit in a line up at the walk in clinic!

[derf]

Part of me thinks this could be a good thing.

I mean, a prescription strength cough medicine could probably be doled out by a pharmacist with little or no harm. Honestly I would say there are many mundane maintenance tasks having to do with treating a well controlled chronic condition (i.e. diabetes that's under good control) that someone farther down the "food chain" than a doctor (i.e. a nurse or pharmacist) could easily handle as part of a managed care approach.


However.

This is a government run bureaucracy. This is strictly a cost cutting effort on the part of the national health. They're not doing this to improve care by any means. I have to wonder if the pharmacists and nurses will have adequate training (and, by the way, how much would that cost?) to discharge their new responsibilities.

Sounds like they're getting "Good Intentions Paving" ready to put in that next stretch of road. But where is that road leading?

[JediSkipdogg]

I know this isn't in the US but I wonder what level of drugs are they going to be able to pass out and will all pharmacists have the same treatment? Will one pharmacist be able to hand out oxcodine if someone has a back ache? To me this could get dangerous very easily if not well controlled.

[Alice]

Yikes! I'm still reeling from the pharmacist that took my order for insulin back in the 80's and said skeptically "You don't look like a diabetic!"...

Good luck!

[RobiJo]

For certain illnesses, I'd be all for it.

I recently had strep, and knew I had strep. I had to go to the doctor---let the nurse swab my throat, they run it for what 3-5 minutes?, shows up positive, then the doctor comes in and says "you have strep." Writes a script for a Z-pack, I leave and go to the pharmacy. He never even had to do anything.

I think that's a great example of something I think pharmacists should be able to do--swab the throat, let it mellow on the petri dish to see if it's positive or not, then give the drugs. It would sure save a trip to the doctor.

[JediSkipdogg]

Or why not just have doctor's give out prescriptions? Geee, what a concept there. If you see an Endo, why can't the endo have a thousand vials of insulin and boxes of strips in the back?

[Hammer]

Back in the late 70's early 80's, I went to a pharmacy here in the states and asked the pharmacist if any of the cough medicines on the shelf were any good. He said no, they were all junk. He then asked me what kind of cough I had....a wet or dry cough. I told him. He asked me for my driver's license, then walked into the back of the pharmacy. He came out with a cough syrup that he mixed and said to follow the instructions. I took it home, took one spoonful, and the cough went away. It was amazing!

As for doling out medicines, I had a doctor that did just that. His practice was mainly geared around weight loss, and 90% of his patients were there for weight loss. He would check your weight and blood pressure, give you an injection of some type of vitamins, then give you the diet pills that worked best for you. He had maybe 20 different types of diet pills, and they were made up in small envelopes of varying dosages and quantities. It was quicker and cheaper than going to the pharmacy.

[Scrabblechick]

I can certainly see a benefit in that for a really great reason: if you have all your scrips filled at the same pharmacy, then the pharmacist can look at everything you're taking and often can spot potential drug interactions long before they occur. That's one good benefit for those of us who see a couple (or more!) different docs. For those who see, for example, a GP, an endo, a cardiologist and a gastroenterologist, that would be a great thing. Docs often don't talk to one another about the same patient, and a pharmacist who had all the scrips on the screen at the same time would be a valuable resource.

Also, pharmacists tend to be "up" on the latest drugs on the market, know when generics will be released, and that sort of thing. Heck yeah, I'd go to a pharmacist for uncomplicated infections and the like. Pick up my Z-pack and go home!

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by Scrabblechick

I can certainly see a benefit in that for a really great reason: if you have all your scrips filled at the same pharmacy, then the pharmacist can look at everything you're taking and often can spot potential drug interactions long before they occur. That's one good benefit for those of us who see a couple (or more!) different docs. For those who see, for example, a GP, an endo, a cardiologist and a gastroenterologist, that would be a great thing. Docs often don't talk to one another about the same patient, and a pharmacist who had all the scrips on the screen at the same time would be a valuable resource.

Also, pharmacists tend to be "up" on the latest drugs on the market, know when generics will be released, and that sort of thing. Heck yeah, I'd go to a pharmacist for uncomplicated infections and the like. Pick up my Z-pack and go home!

Actually, they already do this. If you go to a pharmacist to fill a prescription, they have a central database of some sort that tells the pharmacist about possible drug interactions. I've had it happen to me and the pharmacist mentioned to me that the prescription I just handed him would interact with another drug I was already taking. My doctor knew this though and I told the pharmacist my doctor was aware of it.

I don't know how it works, but it seems that most if not all pharmacies are tied into this database.

[volleyball]

Could it be they are just making more drugs from prescription to over the counter. They are just using the chemist to limit abuse?

[RobiJo]

Originally Posted by JediSkipdogg

Or why not just have doctor's give out prescriptions? Geee, what a concept there. If you see an Endo, why can't the endo have a thousand vials of insulin and boxes of strips in the back?

I could go for that too, specifically for the diabetes related drugs. Then there wouldn't be the run around about how the script was written.

The issue with doing this would perhaps be the drug interactions. I see different doctors who deal with different issues. Using 1 pharmacy helps with this aspect.

[buddy7]

Originally Posted by derf

Part of me thinks this could be a good thing.
However.
This is a government run bureaucracy. This is strictly a cost cutting effort on the part of the national health. They're not doing this to improve care by any means. I have to wonder if the pharmacists and nurses will have adequate training (and, by the way, how much would that cost?) to discharge their new responsibilities.
Sounds like they're getting "Good Intentions Paving" ready to put in that next stretch of road. But where is that road leading?

Thanks guys, for the overwhelming response to my threads, Pharmacists to play Doctors & Nurses? I have no doubt, this seems to be, nothing else than a cost cutting exercise by the UK government and have nothing to do whatsoever with health care.

Being my cynical self, I fine it very difficult to comprehend how much its going to cost to retrain these pharmacists, and the extra staff who will manage and police this new role, I'm sure, this won't come cheap! does this cost out-stretch the proposed savings by the NHS of £400m by the year 2011? it would seem yet a further unnecessary cost to an already over-stretched NHS budget.

I'm always concerned, God for-bid when a misdiagnose occurs, which, given time will happen, may result in the lost of life, where do we point the finger? the GP(doctor) or the pharmacists?

The trouble with bureaucracy and the people, we never seem to read from the same clip-board.

I say thanks again, to you guys who have posted your views, big thank you to derf.

B/7 ESSEX UK.