>> However the idea that GPs should do extra unnecessary work to help
pharmacy
>> businesses and their shareholders is so ludicrous as to be beggar belief.
>Pauls proposal wasn't to do extra work but to do less work - it's the
>change that has the impact. Now go back to my
Correction Jeff - it was revert to my normal practice of 2 month scripts -
not to do less work than I have in the past. The new practice that I have
moved to has 1-month scripts which I do not believe is in the best interest
of the patient or the GPs. Moving to my new practice I have taken on what
appears to be a heavy workload regarding repeat scripts, and one that I
consider is not sustainable. To be quite honest, a hell of a lot of
medication in stable patients could be issued 6 monthly rather than 2
months. I suspect that the government itself however would not like this due
to a reduction in revenue for those paying for scripts.
Fay mentions 6 months for those on contraception. Again I would argue that
once stable, these could possibly be increased to 12 months with no adverse
effects on patient care.
>>We can spend more time reviewing prescriptions (we don't
>>need a pharmacist to do it for us)
>LOL - I've reviewed scripts in enough surgeries to realise that in many
>instances a significant proportion of scripts just
>aren't reviewed - monitoring often doesn't occur - and when it does the
>results are too often ignored.
I think you will find that with the new contract this is very much a new
ball game and most practices will not only be checking the above, but also
actioning what is required. Additionally they will have to link scripts to
disease entities.
Best wishes
Paul Bromley
|