Hi Jeff
That GP (mentioned below) was me,
being provocative of course :-)
I never suggested the patient pass the blame fully onto the
pharmacist, but, as you well know, some chemists are tempted
to use very cheap parallel imports in shoddy packaging. Why
should GPs have to deal with patients complaining about this?
Why should GPs be pressurised into prescribing by brand name
simply to secure reasonable service for their patients?
I have even had patients come in bringing drug information inserts
written in foreign languages, some time ago.
As a community pharmacist, you have a slightly different role to
a small pharmacist, who is, primarily, running a small business.
If he/she doesn't make money, they go bust. I do understand their
predicament, but it creates a conflict with their apparent role as
an impartial advisor. For example, it is rare to hear of a chemist
suggesting "paracetamol, fluids and rest" for viral illnesses.
Patients are usually sold a variety of branded medications, fuelling
the expectation of a pill for every ill.
If pharmacists (and I mean the high street chemist, not yourself)
want an extended role in the NHS, and wish to be treated as part
of the primary care "team", then they must first address this
problem of conflicting interests.
Best wishes, Ruth
----------
From: [log in to unmask] on behalf of Jeff Green
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 1998 10:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Branded drugs
>When I first discovered gp-uk there was a message in which a GP wrote
something to the effect that if a patient complained about a generic they
passed the blame fully onto the pharmacist, and that it wasn't the GPs
problem if the pharmacist supplied second rate generics.
I would suggest that this sort of attitude is hardly likely to make for a
good working relationship. All generics are licensed medicines, all are made
to a standard. Sometimes they are made in the same factory that makes the
branded version.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|