Prescription dispensed with no pharmacist present.

(8 Posts)
Stressedoverkids Sat 20-Oct-18 21:08:42

A proposal has been made that one pharmacist could remotely supervise more than one pharmacy.

I think this is a terrible idea. It will certainly let the big pharmacy chains make more money. It will not be safe. Please sign the petition against this.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/228757

OP’s posts: |
FruitCider Sat 20-Oct-18 21:23:12

Any links to more info?

Stressedoverkids Sat 20-Oct-18 22:49:07

https://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/news/rps-clarifies-stance-remote-supervision-after-pharmacists-concerns

OP’s posts: |
FruitCider Mon 22-Oct-18 07:43:54

Thanks, from what I understand this would be in emergencies only and limited to certain drugs, which is what we already do in pharmacies within prisons eg nurses and accredited checking technicians will dispense salbutamol from stock if need be in an emergency. We will label it with instructions, but not the patients name, then produce a prescription and fax it to pharmacy for it be signed by a prescribing pharmacist.

AtSea1979 Mon 22-Oct-18 07:47:53

Isn’t this because someone died in a chemist waiting for an inhaler or epipen because no one could give it?
If it was my child in that situation then I couldn’t give a fig who handed it over.

FruitCider Mon 22-Oct-18 08:04:10

atsea I'm not sure of the history but either way most ACTs are more than competent to issue low risk medicines in an emergency without a pharmacist there. I work in a prison, it can take 3 working days for someone's inhaler to be delivered from central pharmacy so leaving someone without a reliever for that length of time would be absolutely ridiculous.

letsgetreadytosamba Mon 22-Oct-18 08:06:34

This is interesting, technically a pharmacist can’t leave the building during their lunch hour because they must be in the building for prescriptions which are made up to be dispensed. It’s a bit of a mad rule...

Advertisement

Stressedoverkids Mon 22-Oct-18 08:30:04

I think though the point is the pharmacist will still be expected to be responsible whether or not they are there. The ACT won't be responsible.

I would worry that while it is meant to be for emergencies only it will be used to make greater profits for the big companies.

I have never heard of a situation where someone couldn't get their epipen or inhaler because currently the pharmacist must always be present.

OP’s posts: |

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in