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?

Applicable ages for treatment with the Pharmacy First scheme are given on the NHS website here
How pharmacies can help - NHS

This isn't entirely true. Pharmacists also deal with very severe illnesses, e.g. patients receiving chemotherapy will have their chemo drugs prepared and checked by a pharmacist in a hospital.

First line treatment for a middle ear infection (the type that's typically very painful) is paracetamol and ibuprofen. They typically last for 3-7 days and most commonly no benefit from antibiotics.

Antibiotics should only be considered in those very vulnerable i.e. weak immune system, discharge from both ears, systemically unwell - and actually even in these patients whilst yes they would be prescribed antibiotics in most cases they make very little difference to outcome and the guidance is supportive of withholding unless not improving over several days. This is management plan from NICE:

"For people who may be more likely to benefit from antibiotics (those with otorrhoea (discharge from ear) or those aged less than 2 years with bilateral infection), take account of evidence that acute complications such as mastoiditis are rare with or without antibiotics and the potential adverse effects of antibiotics, and consider:

• No antibiotic prescription — with advice about an antibiotic not being needed and seeking medical help if symptoms worsen rapidly or significantly, do not improve after 3 days, or the person becomes systemically very unwell, or
• A back-up antibiotic prescription — with advice about an antibiotic not being needed immediately; using the back-up prescription if symptoms do not start to improve within 3 days or worsen significantly or rapidly at any time; and seeking medical help if symptoms worsen rapidly or significantly, or the person becomes systemically very unwell, or
• An immediate antibiotic prescription — with advice to seek medical advice if symptoms worsen rapidly or significantly or the person becomes systemically very unwell."

Op said GP told dd to go to the pharmacy. This feels like a major fob-off, mistake, dismissiveness from GP themselves.
Yes I'd be complaining to practice manager. The history is that consultant previously advised if there was a problem again to see GP.

It’s a filter to help stop wasting GP appointments for issues that could be solved with a visit to a pharmacy. It makes sense really.. frustrating when you were right about needing the GP but there are lots of people who don’t need the appointment and book it anyway, making it even harder for those who need it to get an appointment.

Apologies @Oblomov25 I have quoted the wrong post my reply was to @SleepyRich. I have reported my post.

They know more about medications than many GPs. They can certainly treat common ailments. But they're not trained to diagnose or manage illnesses as such.

I’ve never had a swab until after the the first course of antibiotics. Normally the GP would prescribe those and then they would swab if I need to go back. Normally reason a pharmacist can’t prescribe the first set instead of a GP for an uncomplicated ear infection.

it is worth the OP bringing up the fact that her DD couldn’t follow the consultant’s advice with the GP surgery though. Pharmacy first shouldn’t be a case of just having a policy that everyone needs to go there first for minor ailments regardless of circumstances.

The point of Pharmacy First (as I understand it) is to get the public used to seeing a pharmacist for the many medical issues they can assist with rather than jumping straight to the GP.

There is a lot a pharmacist can help with, and it’s quicker, more practical and a more efficient use of resources than a GP appointment.

However, given your consultant’s advice, OP, I would definitely flag this with the practice manager.

They can for certain things, DS2 had an eye infection on Christmas eve 2023, it was a sunday so no GP, he'd just turned 2 and we got antibiotic eyedrops from the pharmacist. We couldn't have bought them of he'd been under 2, I was very glad we got them as it would've been a miserable christmas if we all caught it.

No (occasionally some convert to medicine and then work as drs as a career change, but generally no). Due to the shortage of GPs pharmacists are receiving additional training to treat minor injuries and infections like utis to reduce the gp workload

I think the PP meant pharmacists can only diagnose and prescribe for a small number mild illnesses.

Also untrue.

When a pharmacist is a qualified prescriber, they can assess, diagnose and treat anything within their area of competence in the same way a GP (or any other doctor) can. Their prescribing will be limited by NHS contracts/their employer, not their qualification. Main stipulation is you only prescribe where you believe you are competent to do so

Did you see the consultant in person, if so they could have prescribed or made the GP referral themselves, did they ring or email the GP. I'd complain to the practice manager, it might just be poor communication but needs highlighting.

Nowhere near.

my understanding, from OP's post, is that her DD was under a consultant for this issue, who told her that should a problem occur in the future she should go to the GP. IT might have been some months since she saw the consultant and this is probably a recurrence of the problem seen by the consultant.

I agree that a complaint is in order. The receptionist is not qualified to triage in this way and overrule a consultant.

No she's under ENT and due to the amount of ear infections and operations she's had the consultant has always said GP at first sign of infection (not waiting the usual 5 days).
She last saw him in December and the advice was still the same.

Pharmacists and ANPs are very much qualified to deal with ear infections. They are below a doctor's remit. Don’t waste their time.

Not if her consultant says otherwise surely?

They're qualified to know about lots of different medicines, what they do and treat, and what can and can't be taken together. They need to be able obviously to recommend OTC products. Mainly they need to be very efficient with good attention to detail.
Pharmacology school is much shorter than medicine. Where it takes about seven years I think to fully qualify. But as a doctor you're always learning.
A pharmacist might work in a high street, in a hospital, in a care home, but the work they do will be similar. With doctors there's loads of separate disciplines.

Her consultant specified she see a GP so no they are not ‘below their remit’.

Pharmacists are well placed to guide on simple ear infections and can also supply antibiotics where appropriate but in this case they have specifically said to see the GP presumably for other tests/checks

If I were the pharmacist in the community and a patient presented to me where their consultant had specified they see their GP, I would have agreed with the instruction. Community pharmacists don’t have access to clinic letters, medical history, blood results etc etc all of which influence decision making

I ask the local pharmacist about a variety of things and trust their judgement, but I've seen a GP recently with a potential ear infection - after an examination it wasn't what I thought and I've been referred on to ENT. If I'd just been given antibiotics or painkillers I'd have no idea there was something that could potentially damage my hearing long term.

The pharmacist probably would have referred you to the GP though rather than prescribe antibiotics.

I think you've slightly confused the issue OP by talking about your two different children. Your DD def should have been seen by the GP and not a pharmacist, and I'd suggest she complains about that because her medical history means it should be a GP she sees - it sounds like this was a case of a receptionist following their instructions to the letter and not recognising that there will be exceptions.

For your DS, seeing a pharmacist first would be right, as, assuming he doesn't also seen an ENT consultant or have other complications, they should be able to suggest treatment, or refer back to the GP if needed.