Is a pharmacist as qualified as a doctor?

[Tootiredmummyof3]

Really stupid question I know and I assume they're not but I don't know. DD1 was told by GP to go to the pharmacy for an ear infection (despite the hospital consultant saying you must be seen by a GP as soon as you have a problem). They referred her back to the GP saying the infection was too severe.
DS likely has an ear or throat infection (non verbal so not sure which) and again get referred to the pharmacy. I don't mind but what actually are they qualified for to do? If they are being used so much will GPs no longer be needed.
Just for the record because I'm sure someone will ask yes I did speak to the receptionist and tell them DD needs to be seen by a GP and the discussion became a bit heated but was still refused a doctor appointment.
Anyway just wondering if they are as qualified as a doctor in which case why have a doctor? Or if they have x amount of medical training but it's different?

Well obviously they’re qualified differently.
qualified in pharmaceuticals, medications etc.
Surely with an ear infection the options are anti biotics (which a pharmacy can prescribe) or the infection is so severe there are risks of septis or other systemic issues (which a pharmacist would be able to spot the signs of).

Pharmacists are qualified to dispense medication. They only deal with very mild illnesses. They don't study medicine the same way as a doctor which is why they can't be seen for anything really bad

Their qualification relate to what drugs are correct for what illnesses, and how drugs interact.

How did you phrase it to the receptionist? Not defending them, they should have believed you. Did you say “the pharmacist has said this is to severe for him/her to deal with and says I must see a doctor?”

If so, your next best bet is 111.

A pharmacist is qualified to be a pharmacist. They are not doctors. I would put a complaint into the Practice Manager about this matter. If the hospital stipulated your daughter should see a GP, then that’s what should happen. Stand your ground.

I didn’t think pharmacists could see children?

Also, you cannot be refused a doctors appt. Complaint the surgery manager

Sorry they did give her an appointment when she was referred by pharmacist but they should have given her a GP appointment straight away as that's her consultant's advice.

DD is 18 but DS is 4. However I will take him to the pharmacy and see what they say. If they say GP I will call them

Pharmacists know all there is to know about drugs and their efficacy and interactions - far more than doctors do. Pharmacists can, therefore advise on common ailments which are likely to respond well to simple treatments, However, in this case, it sounds like you’re being fobbed off by the GP gatekeeper receptionist. Surely if you tell them that the Pharmacist has said they can’t deal with the problem and has advised you must see a GP, they can’t refuse?

Community pharmacists are highly qualified and can deal with many minor ailments using over the counter/phamacist only drugs, they also check what has been prescribed for you by a doctor to ensure there are not errors. Unless they have done additional qualifications and are working as part of a multi disciplinary team, they generally don’t prescribe. It’s alarming that your GP referred to a pharmacist if your hospital specialist has sent them a clinical letter saying your child must be seen in practice.

Pharmacists are qualified to degree level on their subject and also do a pre-reg year.

It will be because of pharmacy first which means pharmacists can treat certain minor illnesses without the need for a GP appointment. Ear infections can be treated from the age of 1 but sore throats is age 5 and over so if it is his throat they won’t be able to deal with that. Also they tend to treat ear and throat infections as a one off illness but if it’s more complicated than that or you are under a ENT consultant then they may refer you back to the GP instead which is then a waste of everyone’s time! Have a google of pharmacy first.

A pharmacist is differently qualified to a doctor. Both have their place.

For things like mild infection or a rash it's often best to start with a pharmacist because a) you can walk in and see one immediately, b)if they can't deal with it you have their advice to see a GP, which means you can't be as easily fobbed off at the doctor's and c) if they can deal with it you've saved yourself a lot of time and hassle (and the GP's appointment is free for someone who needs it).

No, they definitely are not qualified GP’s. Unfortunately it’s usual to be asked to see pharmacist first for mild illnesses, I would however be concerned about ear infections, as these can differ and sometimes need a swab doing to ascertain what type of infection it is, so the right medication can be given.

There is a new scheme called pharmacy first which allows pharmacists to see and treat ear infections etc in children.

It's intended to reduce the pressure on GP appointments for simple infections.

If your child is under a consultant then pharmacy first isn't appropriate and you will
Need to make this clear to the GP.

Some pharmacists are trained as an independent prescriber which means they will have done a certain level of training alongside a GP or other doctor which allow them to prescribe for acute infections. The training consists of completing a full consultation to determine the problem. In my area they often do their additional year long training in out of hours as well as written work. The pharmacists that I know can treat all ages as it is covered in the training as an independent prescriber.

The pharmacy first scheme is slightly different and has 7 conditions. All treatable via antibiotics. I'm not certain of age ranges included in the scheme.

Answer to your original question you need to check if the pharmacist is an independent prescriber or just offering the pharmacy first scheme as they are different things, and can see different age ranges. A lot of schemes children under two are referred to the GP.

if your 18yr old daughter’s ENT consultant has said gp for all infections going forward, it would be worth her contacting the surgery manager asking for this to be highlit on her notes for reception team to see

but having said that, seeing a pharmacist is often the fastest route now as you can just drop in without an appt, and if the pharmacist then says it needs a GP they will probably be able to book a fast time appt on her behalf

So much misinformation

Firstly a pharmacist is a pharmacist and a doctor is a doctor - otherwise there would be no need for two separate university courses, jobs and titles!

Pharmacists are highly trained in medicines, how they work, how they are made and many other aspects. Many now are also clinically trained to diagnose and prescribe - this applies to areas they have clinical experience in. So many community pharmacists are able to give advice on minor ailments such as ear infections, rashes, coughs. The absolutely can treat children. Hospital pharmacists tend to be highly trained in specialist areas, not mild illnesses as a PP incorrectly stated. I worked as a prescribing pharmacist in paediatric oncology for several years and my knowledge is far more than any GP on the topic.

In this case, the child should have been seen by a GP because the consultant specified. When this has been the instruction, the pharmacist will rightly agree that it requires GP input. If you initially said this was the instruction when you requested the appointment and were still told to go to the pharmacist, I would agree with putting in a complaint. The receptionist wasted your time for no reason

Also with an ear infection, pharmacist would prescribe first line treatment in the area same as a GP. If this didn't clear things up then pharmacist would normally then refer to the GP for further investigation.

They have different qualifications. A community pharmacist will know more about medicines than a GP but doctors are almost certainly more qualified to diagnose and prescribe.

Write to your GP practice manager with 'procedural complaint' and state clearly that you contacted them for an appointment, they signposted you to the pharmacist instead, but that the pharmacist has said the issue needs a doctor. Now you're being referred back to the pharmacist again and cannot make an appointment, they are being deliberately obtuse as you've done what they've asked and the pharmacist isn't able to advise.

This

As others have said it's the pharmacy first scheme. They're not qualified as Drs at all. They're experts in their field and vital to the health service, but they have very little training to see undifferentiated patient presentations so not the most ideal of schemes.

The idea is the huge majority of people attending with sore throats/ears don't need any treatment at all, they'll get better all by themselves over a few days. But some people do just insist on being seen by someone/anyone everytime they have one. GP capacity is too low to have their time taken up with this.

The difficulty is that pharmacists are a lot more likely to miss the rare subtle presentations of other more sinister conditions that a GP might have caught, but the volume coming through the door now it's a case of relying on the wait and see/safety netting approach and investigating on the 3rd presentation/persisting beyond X weeks depending on the complaint.

If the hospital Consultant wanted something prescribing, they should have done it themselves.

As others have said, complain to the practice manager about both the procedures in place for triage and the individual employee and cite the consultants medical advice repeatedly (which I imagine you already did!)