Chemists demand access to patient records
High street chemists in Scotland are demanding direct access to patient records, saying it is essential as they take over more work from GPs.
The controversial move has already raised concerns from some groups about confidentiality being breached and personal information being used to market products.
However, Community Pharmacy Scotland, which represents the owners of Scotland's 1200 chemists, say with their responsibilities for healthcare growing, the issue can no longer be ignored.
The group's new manifesto, released today, urges the Scottish Government to give pharmacists access to electronic patient records. This includes both the existing Emergency Care Summary - an electronic file which shows basic information about patients, including any bad reactions to drugs - and aspects of patients' full medical records as these are moved to a national database.
Martin Green, Community Pharmacy Scotland chairman, said pharmacists were being asked to take on new roles and relieve pressure on other NHS staff.
He added: "This increasing role is to be welcomed, but it also needs to be properly resourced and managed. It is vital to ensure best patient care and our members must be given the tools to do the job. We believe our members need to have as much information on patients as possible with regard to medication in the interests of safety. We regard appropriate access to electronic records as essential."
Pharmacists have already been given authority to issue medicine to patients on repeat prescriptions when GPs are off. Patients exempt from prescription charges can also register with their nearest chemist and consult them about treatment for common illnesses.
In future, chemists also expect to play a greater role in public health, offering emergency contraception and support to quit smoking, among other services. They also plan to play a greater role managing patients with chronic diseases, helping doctors to monitor people on longterm medication.
Alex MacKinnon, head of corporate affairs for Community Pharmacy Scotland, listed a number of occasions when accessing a patient's medication history would improve their safety.
He said: "If you have a patient presenting for the first time with a prescription for a prescription-only medicine, I would like to know what they have had before and what else they are on. The pharmacist plays a very important role in making sure the medicine and the dose and quantity is correct."
He said access to records was particularly pertinent given the growing role pharmacists are playing when GP surgeries are shut, such as in emergency care on bank holidays and at weekends. "Patients expect the community pharmacy to be the doctor at these times," he added.
Dr Stuart Scott, joint deputy chair of the British Medical Association's Scottish General Practitioners Committee, said patients should be consulted before any moves to widen access to their records.
He said: "Certainly the patient representatives on the Emergency Care Summary Programme Board were not particularly in favour of pharmacies getting access at this stage Some rural patients were worried about confidentiality and there were concerns some of the major corporate players such as Boots may use information for reasons other than just treating patients. They were worried it might be used for targeting insurance and for targeting marketing."
Mr MacKinnon said security fears should not be used to prevent access in pharmacies.
However, former GP and MSP Dr Jean Turner, chief executive of the Scottish Patient Association, said: "Sadly I've not come across an IT system which has been perfect in practice, in the Scottish Parliament or at home."
While noting benefits to the move, she added: "You cannot rely on IT systems for security. The more people that wish to have access to a patient's record, the more confidentiality goes out the window."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: ael on 1:26am Mon 22 Oct 07
There's only one answer to this and it's as easy as saying NO!
Not in this life.
No excuses either.
Check it out, folks!
There's only one answer to this and it's as easy as saying NO!
Not in this life.
No excuses either.
Check it out, folks!
Posted by: John, Edinburgh on 1:48am Mon 22 Oct 07
Whatever is decided, it would be nice to think that "electronic medical records" were at least accurate. To that end, giving patients sight of theirs should be mandatory so that any glaring innacuracies can be addressed. I would hate to think that many would find theirs as I did when I asked my medical practice for a print-out prior to a recent holiday in the USA. That resulted in me discovering that the days of miracles are still with us - I appear to have regrown an amputated big toe and recovered completely from a stroke - both of which I had forgotten about!!. Funny on the face of it, frightening in the healthcare setting and in the hands of an insurance company proably more debilitating than a inaccurate credit record.
Whatever is decided, it would be nice to think that "electronic medical records" were at least accurate. To that end, giving patients sight of theirs should be mandatory so that any glaring innacuracies can be addressed. I would hate to think that many would find theirs as I did when I asked my medical practice for a print-out prior to a recent holiday in the USA. That resulted in me discovering that the days of miracles are still with us - I appear to have regrown an amputated big toe and recovered completely from a stroke - both of which I had forgotten about!!. Funny on the face of it, frightening in the healthcare setting and in the hands of an insurance company proably more debilitating than a inaccurate credit record.
Posted by: -agw, Argyll on 4:45am Mon 22 Oct 07
A major problem looms immediately. Chemists now have the powers under the 1968 Drugs Act to issue Emergency Prescriptions to patients who have run short of, or left home without, prescription medicines. Almost all multiple chemists chains and supermarket chains such as Asda tell their pharmacists to refuse to issue such prescription if there is a possibility of a doctor's surgery being open in the area.
I am an insulin dependent diabetic and have absolutely no complaints with my local Lyods Pharmacy. Where the system falls flat is when Emergency prescription issue denied by Lloyds and Asda chains among many others. On these occasions it is clear no inter-group patient records are held.
These refusals are not for heavy duty Prescription Only Medicines but routinely required drugs. I am exempt from prescription charges and the emergency issue scheme would mean I pay £4 or the true cost for a four to five day supply.
Since pharmacists are already abrogating their duty in this way it would be total folly to allow them further powers. They are after all not part of the National Health Service. Their primary duty is profit.
Chemists. particularly newly-qualified ones, are already avoiding use of the powers granted to them under the 1968 Act it would. therefore, a be far better position and easier to manage if drug dependent condition patients were issued with swipe cards giving details of their medications. These cards could be issued by GPs and/or Health Centres and Chemists throughout Europe would [bold]HAVE[/bold] to observe the details contained. That way only patients who have a need for assistance would be in the position of allowing a commercial organisation to have partial access to their records. Any other information issue is totally and utterly wrong.
A major problem looms immediately. Chemists now have the powers under the 1968 Drugs Act to issue Emergency Prescriptions to patients who have run short of, or left home without, prescription medicines. Almost all multiple chemists chains and supermarket chains such as Asda tell their pharmacists to refuse to issue such prescription if there is a possibility of a doctor's surgery being open in the area.
I am an insulin dependent diabetic and have absolutely no complaints with my local Lyods Pharmacy. Where the system falls flat is when Emergency prescription issue denied by Lloyds and Asda chains among many others. On these occasions it is clear no inter-group patient records are held.
These refusals are not for heavy duty Prescription Only Medicines but routinely required drugs. I am exempt from prescription charges and the emergency issue scheme would mean I pay £4 or the true cost for a four to five day supply.
Since pharmacists are already abrogating their duty in this way it would be total folly to allow them further powers. They are after all not part of the National Health Service. Their primary duty is profit.
Chemists. particularly newly-qualified ones, are already avoiding use of the powers granted to them under the 1968 Act it would. therefore, a be far better position and easier to manage if drug dependent condition patients were issued with swipe cards giving details of their medications. These cards could be issued by GPs and/or Health Centres and Chemists throughout Europe would
HAVE to observe the details contained. That way only patients who have a need for assistance would be in the position of allowing a commercial organisation to have partial access to their records. Any other information issue is totally and utterly wrong.
Posted by: Joe Black, Glasgow on 7:33am Mon 22 Oct 07
"when GP surgeries are shut, such as in emergency care on bank holidays and at weekends. Patients expect the community pharmacy to be the doctor at these times"
Most chemist are closed on Sundays and Bank Holidays so how does this work?
"when GP surgeries are shut, such as in emergency care on bank holidays and at weekends. Patients expect the community pharmacy to be the doctor at these times"
Most chemist are closed on Sundays and Bank Holidays so how does this work?
Posted by: fifer on 7:44am Mon 22 Oct 07
my son needs repeats. due to GP's being closed more, I have used the pharmacist to issue emergency prescriptions. last time was a few weeks ago. GP closed on Saturday but also on the Monday due to staff training. I have had no problems. I have also had my blood pressure taken there.
my son needs repeats. due to GP's being closed more, I have used the pharmacist to issue emergency prescriptions. last time was a few weeks ago. GP closed on Saturday but also on the Monday due to staff training. I have had no problems. I have also had my blood pressure taken there.
Posted by: Huttcity, New Zealand on 8:21am Mon 22 Oct 07
supermarket cartels trying to increase their vast databases of personal info. One day there will be only supermarkets.
supermarket cartels trying to increase their vast databases of personal info. One day there will be only supermarkets.
Posted by: Jack, Glasgow on 8:37am Mon 22 Oct 07
If you want to see my medical records then you had better be a qualified GP or hospital Doctor. I'm fed up to the back teeth with so called "medical professionals" wanting unqualified access to MY records. We now have everyone and their brother (usually members of the professional sisterhood) stating that they know as much as, do nearly the same job as, have as much responsibility as....DOCTORS! Excuse me, if you want to be the same as a doctor then do the 8 years or more at Uni, pass the exams and become a Doctor of Medicine. Otherwise you are nothing more than a pretendy, on the cheap, jumped up quack. As such you have no right to see anything!
If you want to see my medical records then you had better be a qualified GP or hospital Doctor. I'm fed up to the back teeth with so called "medical professionals" wanting unqualified access to MY records. We now have everyone and their brother (usually members of the professional sisterhood) stating that they know as much as, do nearly the same job as, have as much responsibility as....DOCTORS! Excuse me, if you want to be the same as a doctor then do the 8 years or more at Uni, pass the exams and become a Doctor of Medicine. Otherwise you are nothing more than a pretendy, on the cheap, jumped up quack. As such you have no right to see anything!
Posted by: mairead, Argyll on 8:42am Mon 22 Oct 07
I would be extremely angry if my medical records were disclosed to a pharmacist other than what medications I should be receiving, which is in fact all they need to know. The rest of my medical records is none of their business and nothing to do with giving out prescription medication
Too many people already have access to personal and private information, including insurance companies.
I would be extremely angry if my medical records were disclosed to a pharmacist other than what medications I should be receiving, which is in fact all they need to know. The rest of my medical records is none of their business and nothing to do with giving out prescription medication
Too many people already have access to personal and private information, including insurance companies.
Posted by: homo sapiens on 8:45am Mon 22 Oct 07
Absolutely NOT. Under no circumstances should personal information be placed in the hands of pharmacists or for that matter any other people. The NHS mega data-bases are prone to abuse and will allow the disclosure of a person's most personal and intimate data. The Big Brother society has to be stopped.
Absolutely NOT. Under no circumstances should personal information be placed in the hands of pharmacists or for that matter any other people. The NHS mega data-bases are prone to abuse and will allow the disclosure of a person's most personal and intimate data. The Big Brother society has to be stopped.
Posted by: Wullie on 8:59am Mon 22 Oct 07
Amazing really how every bit of an individual's personal information seems to be increasingly incorporated into ever more powerful data-bases over which the individual has control.
The government proposals for a National ID card together with National DNA, national tax file,national health file, national drivers licence file, criminal records file, disclosurs file, passport file, vehicle registration file together with photo recognition software, vehicle automatic number plate reading systems, satellite tracking of vehicles, electronic voting, retention of all e-mails and phone calls and much much more - portends a truly Orwellian future that is here already.
Indeed, with the introduction of the National DNA data-base and the recent trailing of the proposal that the dead will be presumed as spare parts for transplantation save if they priorly opt out - it does seem that the DNA data-base will provide a handy register of who has what and where.
Nonsense to suggest that this could happen, or would it even be thought about - I mean was it the Icelands government who sold their National DNA records of every citizen to a private for profit company
Eh, I bet some insurance companies will not touch with a barge pole some of the poor consumers, (sorry citizens- sic) , who have dodgy DNA!. Uninsurable underclass methinks.
But we need have no fear of this or any other Government's use of such controls, or the designs of the large corpoartions - now do we?
Oh - finally has anyone heard of a Company called Experian who hold information on just about everyone. They have a product called Mosaic which racially profiles individuals on the basis of factors such as names and etc. Government and companies use it.
Seems that they don't need to Data Protection disclose what they have logged against you because technically they are only making an assessment.
.
Amazing really how every bit of an individual's personal information seems to be increasingly incorporated into ever more powerful data-bases over which the individual has control.
The government proposals for a National ID card together with National DNA, national tax file,national health file, national drivers licence file, criminal records file, disclosurs file, passport file, vehicle registration file together with photo recognition software, vehicle automatic number plate reading systems, satellite tracking of vehicles, electronic voting, retention of all e-mails and phone calls and much much more - portends a truly Orwellian future that is here already.
Indeed, with the introduction of the National DNA data-base and the recent trailing of the proposal that the dead will be presumed as spare parts for transplantation save if they priorly opt out - it does seem that the DNA data-base will provide a handy register of who has what and where.
Nonsense to suggest that this could happen, or would it even be thought about - I mean was it the Icelands government who sold their National DNA records of every citizen to a private for profit company
Eh, I bet some insurance companies will not touch with a barge pole some of the poor consumers, (sorry citizens- sic) , who have dodgy DNA!. Uninsurable underclass methinks.
But we need have no fear of this or any other Government's use of such controls, or the designs of the large corpoartions - now do we?
Oh - finally has anyone heard of a Company called Experian who hold information on just about everyone. They have a product called Mosaic which racially profiles individuals on the basis of factors such as names and etc. Government and companies use it.
Seems that they don't need to Data Protection disclose what they have logged against you because technically they are only making an assessment.
.
Posted by: bsrvd, enraged on 9:15am Mon 22 Oct 07
Our medical records are incredibly sensitive and important and for the doctor himself to secure them is critical.
We need proof that our medical records could not be tampered with and altered. This is our demand as a patient.
The situation is intolerable and only shows the stupidity and ignorance of these chemist's attitude.
Our medical records are incredibly sensitive and important and for the doctor himself to secure them is critical.
We need proof that our medical records could not be tampered with and altered. This is our demand as a patient.
The situation is intolerable and only shows the stupidity and ignorance of these chemist's attitude.
Posted by: John Kerr on 9:22am Mon 22 Oct 07
[quote]quote[/quote] No, no,no. Never. There is enough of our private data readilly available to public scrutiny. Surely this is a step too far. Is everyone who is employed in High St chemists going to be scrutinised for their honesty and integretity. More so are they going to be trained to a standard of proficiency to handle such information. Apart from the personal issue there is safety to be considered. I certainly would NOT be happy taking drugs from anyone except a qualified GP. This is just a cynical marketing move by pharmacutal manufacturers. I urge the Herald to forward all negative views it receives to the Scottish Executive. John Kerr
quote
No, no,no. Never. There is enough of our private data readilly available to public scrutiny. Surely this is a step too far. Is everyone who is employed in High St chemists going to be scrutinised for their honesty and integretity. More so are they going to be trained to a standard of proficiency to handle such information. Apart from the personal issue there is safety to be considered. I certainly would NOT be happy taking drugs from anyone except a qualified GP. This is just a cynical marketing move by pharmacutal manufacturers. I urge the Herald to forward all negative views it receives to the Scottish Executive. John Kerr
Posted by: Laura Williamson on 9:25am Mon 22 Oct 07
What about the Pharmacists who consistantly give out the wrong drugs to patients with the similar names? My parents are on long term medication & frequently find their drugs are given to other patients who similarly are on long term treatments (but not the same drugs). What about the Pharmacists who administer the wrong prescription/dosage & again, do this consistantly? If they are given even more rights, heaven only knows what may and probably will happen. This could easily lead to something quite catastrophic. Before any such measures are in place, some Pharmacies need to tighten up their drug administration practices.
What about the Pharmacists who consistantly give out the wrong drugs to patients with the similar names? My parents are on long term medication & frequently find their drugs are given to other patients who similarly are on long term treatments (but not the same drugs). What about the Pharmacists who administer the wrong prescription/dosage & again, do this consistantly? If they are given even more rights, heaven only knows what may and probably will happen. This could easily lead to something quite catastrophic. Before any such measures are in place, some Pharmacies need to tighten up their drug administration practices.
Posted by: ONLY through my GP, fife on 10:24am Mon 22 Oct 07
surgery now has a pharmacist running the bp clinic. thought to myself, fair enough, he's a professional, has values etc. well i got that wrong. he had a good rummage through my notes and said i was a very interesting person, medically speaking. felt that there were better medication options which the gp should be considering, and would like to see me again, after he'd had a word with her! IF HE WANTS TO BE A DOCTOR HE SHOULD GO TO MEDICAL SCHOOL> he freaked me out and i have not been back at all. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and he was way too personal.
surgery now has a pharmacist running the bp clinic. thought to myself, fair enough, he's a professional, has values etc. well i got that wrong. he had a good rummage through my notes and said i was a very interesting person, medically speaking. felt that there were better medication options which the gp should be considering, and would like to see me again, after he'd had a word with her! IF HE WANTS TO BE A DOCTOR HE SHOULD GO TO MEDICAL SCHOOL> he freaked me out and i have not been back at all. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and he was way too personal.
Posted by: steg, Ayrshire on 11:55am Mon 22 Oct 07
[quote]quote[/quote] I recently went to a pharmacy, Cohen's in Haslingden, Lancashire, to attempt to purchase medical supplies in an emergency situation.
They refused point-blank to accept my Scottish banknotes, claiming this was an instruction from 'Head Office'. I then had to call an ambulance and the patient was rushed into A+E to be treated for abdominal haemorrhaging.
Would you entrust your medical care to such a backward, ignorant service? These jumped-up wannabe doctors are just counter monkeys who seem to think they are a breed apart. I don't want them to have any of my confidential information.
quote
I recently went to a pharmacy, Cohen's in Haslingden, Lancashire, to attempt to purchase medical supplies in an emergency situation.
They refused point-blank to accept my Scottish banknotes, claiming this was an instruction from 'Head Office'. I then had to call an ambulance and the patient was rushed into A+E to be treated for abdominal haemorrhaging.
Would you entrust your medical care to such a backward, ignorant service? These jumped-up wannabe doctors are just counter monkeys who seem to think they are a breed apart. I don't want them to have any of my confidential information.
Posted by: jennifer, Fife on 12:06pm Mon 22 Oct 07
This should be resisted at all costs. What possible reason would the pharmicist need to have access to medical records? None. Its not the place of a commerical chemist to engage in medical diagnosis. Secondly is this some under hand way of attempting to privatise the use of medical records? Thirdly how would private medical records not be compromised by commercial priorities? A very bad nasty idea.
This should be resisted at all costs. What possible reason would the pharmicist need to have access to medical records? None. Its not the place of a commerical chemist to engage in medical diagnosis. Secondly is this some under hand way of attempting to privatise the use of medical records? Thirdly how would private medical records not be compromised by commercial priorities? A very bad nasty idea.
Posted by: Mrs Humbug, Scotland on 12:10pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Mr MacKinnon claims pharmicists need to know what other drugs a patient is taking. Why? - The Doctor issuing the prescription already knows what other medicines have been prescribed and whether the patient has any other medical conditions.
Pharmacists should only have the information needed to provide repeat prescriptions. All other medical records must be kept confidential.
Mr MacKinnon claims pharmicists need to know what other drugs a patient is taking. Why? - The Doctor issuing the prescription already knows what other medicines have been prescribed and whether the patient has any other medical conditions.
Pharmacists should only have the information needed to provide repeat prescriptions. All other medical records must be kept confidential.
Posted by: sam, greenock on 12:29pm Mon 22 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Mrs Humbug[/bold] wrote:
Mr MacKinnon claims pharmicists need to know what other drugs a patient is taking. Why? - The Doctor issuing the prescription already knows what other medicines have been prescribed and whether the patient has any other medical conditions. Pharmacists should only have the information needed to provide repeat prescriptions. All other medical records must be kept confidential.[/quote] Well Mrs Humbug it's like this:
The pharmicist knows more about the drugs your taking than the doctor, he knows about specific mixtures/combination
s of drugs, he knows about quantities and time lines too. He/She is the verification that what the doctor prescribes is correct.......doctor
s make mistakes too you know. You obviously think doctors are infallible..........
you obviously think Dr Shipman is innocent too then!
Mrs Humbug wrote:
Mr MacKinnon claims pharmicists need to know what other drugs a patient is taking. Why? - The Doctor issuing the prescription already knows what other medicines have been prescribed and whether the patient has any other medical conditions. Pharmacists should only have the information needed to provide repeat prescriptions. All other medical records must be kept confidential.
Well Mrs Humbug it's like this:
The pharmicist knows more about the drugs your taking than the doctor, he knows about specific mixtures/combination
s of drugs, he knows about quantities and time lines too. He/She is the verification that what the doctor prescribes is correct.......doctor
s make mistakes too you know. You obviously think doctors are infallible..........
you obviously think Dr Shipman is innocent too then!
Posted by: Glaswegian on 1:35pm Mon 22 Oct 07
He said access to records was particularly pertinent given the growing role pharmacists are playing when GP surgeries are shut, such as in emergency care on bank holidays and at weekends. "Patients expect the community pharmacy to be the doctor at these times," he added.
No no no! At weekends there are plenty of emergencty doctors on call, without pharmacists playing at being doctors.
What's the hidden agenda behind all this? is it so that pharmaceutical companies can get closer to confidential patient data to target patients directly?
He said access to records was particularly pertinent given the growing role pharmacists are playing when GP surgeries are shut, such as in emergency care on bank holidays and at weekends. "Patients expect the community pharmacy to be the doctor at these times," he added.
No no no! At weekends there are plenty of emergencty doctors on call, without pharmacists playing at being doctors.
What's the hidden agenda behind all this? is it so that pharmaceutical companies can get closer to confidential patient data to target patients directly?
Posted by: Louisa on 2:21pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Sam - Greenock at 12.29
The pharmacist may know about drugs but not about the specific nature and indication of the individual's clinical status who requires them - that is a medical NOT a pharmaceutical decision.
No, absolutely no to the 'right' of anyone except the medics to call up my medical records for use in a personal health context.
Sam - Greenock at 12.29
The pharmacist may know about drugs but not about the specific nature and indication of the individual's clinical status who requires them - that is a medical NOT a pharmaceutical decision.
No, absolutely no to the 'right' of anyone except the medics to call up my medical records for use in a personal health context.
Posted by: Louisa on 2:23pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Sam - Greenock at 12.29
The pharmacist may know about drugs but not about the specific nature and indication of the individual's clinical status who requires them - that is a medical NOT a pharmaceutical decision.
No, absolutely no to the 'right' of anyone except the medics to call up my medical records for use in a personal health context.
Sam - Greenock at 12.29
The pharmacist may know about drugs but not about the specific nature and indication of the individual's clinical status who requires them - that is a medical NOT a pharmaceutical decision.
No, absolutely no to the 'right' of anyone except the medics to call up my medical records for use in a personal health context.
Posted by: Trish Niblock, Edinburgh on 2:25pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Last September I took one Nurofen tablet for a strained rib. Within 5-10 minutes I felt increasing pressure creeping up my chest and up into my neck and jaw...I could not breathe except for slow breathing with my diaphragm ( luckily I am a physio ). Also Luckily I always have Arnica Homeopathic pills on my table ... and Bryonia for tight muscles which I took. and In 10 mintes or so I was able to breathe again.
My GP said "You shouldn't have taken Ibroprufen or Nurophen as they make your blood pressure go up"
YET one year later ( today ) my friend in Cardiff with Sciatica was advised by her local Pharmacist to take Nurophen for her acute pain. She already has High Blood pressure....
1 The pharmacist did not know the possible side effects of Ibroprofen
2 Even with her medical notes he still would have prescribed a dangerous pill for someone with High BP
Some Pharmacists dont even know what drugs are safe!!!!!!!!!
Last September I took one Nurofen tablet for a strained rib. Within 5-10 minutes I felt increasing pressure creeping up my chest and up into my neck and jaw...I could not breathe except for slow breathing with my diaphragm ( luckily I am a physio ). Also Luckily I always have Arnica Homeopathic pills on my table ... and Bryonia for tight muscles which I took. and In 10 mintes or so I was able to breathe again.
My GP said "You shouldn't have taken Ibroprufen or Nurophen as they make your blood pressure go up"
YET one year later ( today ) my friend in Cardiff with Sciatica was advised by her local Pharmacist to take Nurophen for her acute pain. She already has High Blood pressure....
1 The pharmacist did not know the possible side effects of Ibroprofen
2 Even with her medical notes he still would have prescribed a dangerous pill for someone with High BP
Some Pharmacists dont even know what drugs are safe!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Trish Niblock, Edinburgh on 2:32pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Dear Editor
Please give this information to Alex MacKinnon, head of corporate affairs for Community Pharmacy Scotland, listed a number of occasions when accessing a patient's medication history would improve their safety.
Pharmacists MUST know what the side effects are of over the counter drugs. - see Ibroprofen / Nurophen in this colomn.
Trish Niblock Edinburgh
Dear Editor
Please give this information to Alex MacKinnon, head of corporate affairs for Community Pharmacy Scotland, listed a number of occasions when accessing a patient's medication history would improve their safety.
Pharmacists MUST know what the side effects are of over the counter drugs. - see Ibroprofen / Nurophen in this colomn.
Trish Niblock Edinburgh
Posted by: sam, greenock on 6:25pm Mon 22 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Trish Niblock[/bold] wrote:
Last September I took one Nurofen tablet for a strained rib. Within 5-10 minutes I felt increasing pressure creeping up my chest and up into my neck and jaw...I could not breathe except for slow breathing with my diaphragm ( luckily I am a physio ). Also Luckily I always have Arnica Homeopathic pills on my table ... and Bryonia for tight muscles which I took. and In 10 mintes or so I was able to breathe again. My GP said "You shouldn't have taken Ibroprufen or Nurophen as they make your blood pressure go up" YET one year later ( today ) my friend in Cardiff with Sciatica was advised by her local Pharmacist to take Nurophen for her acute pain. She already has High Blood pressure.... 1 The pharmacist did not know the possible side effects of Ibroprofen 2 Even with her medical notes he still would have prescribed a dangerous pill for someone with High BP Some Pharmacists dont even know what drugs are safe!!!!!!!!! [/quote] Sounds as if yer at the nonsense talk as well Trish:
1) How do you know that the Arnica and/or Bryonia would've saved you, for all you knew it could've benn anaphalactic(sic) shock, stick to rubbing sore arms and legs.
2) How do you know that the pharmacist "Even with her medical notes he still would have prescribed a dangerous pill for someone with High BP" stick to rubbing sore arms and legs.
You're a physio for pete's sake.
Trish Niblock wrote:
Last September I took one Nurofen tablet for a strained rib. Within 5-10 minutes I felt increasing pressure creeping up my chest and up into my neck and jaw...I could not breathe except for slow breathing with my diaphragm ( luckily I am a physio ). Also Luckily I always have Arnica Homeopathic pills on my table ... and Bryonia for tight muscles which I took. and In 10 mintes or so I was able to breathe again. My GP said "You shouldn't have taken Ibroprufen or Nurophen as they make your blood pressure go up" YET one year later ( today ) my friend in Cardiff with Sciatica was advised by her local Pharmacist to take Nurophen for her acute pain. She already has High Blood pressure.... 1 The pharmacist did not know the possible side effects of Ibroprofen 2 Even with her medical notes he still would have prescribed a dangerous pill for someone with High BP Some Pharmacists dont even know what drugs are safe!!!!!!!!!
Sounds as if yer at the nonsense talk as well Trish:
1) How do you know that the Arnica and/or Bryonia would've saved you, for all you knew it could've benn anaphalactic(sic) shock, stick to rubbing sore arms and legs.
2) How do you know that the pharmacist "Even with her medical notes he still would have prescribed a dangerous pill for someone with High BP" stick to rubbing sore arms and legs.
You're a physio for pete's sake.
Posted by: A Pharmacist, Scotland on 7:17pm Mon 22 Oct 07
Have read all of your posts with interest. Sadly, many of the comments seem particularly ill-informed. In the interests of a balanced view I feel its worth addressing some of your readers concerns and posing a few questions of my own.
For people not happy taking drugs from anyone other than a qualified GP, can i assume you have you prescriptions dispensed at the doctors surgery rather than at a Pharmacy?
Are any of the people commenting aware that to qualify as a Pharmacist you require to obtain a Masters degree in Pharmacy and complete five years of tertiary education.
Who do people think advise Doctors on what medications to prescribe?
Pharmacists ARE a part of the infrastructure of the NHS, in order to dispense an NHS prescription you need to have a contract from the relevant Health Board.
If a Pharmacist is consistently suppling the wrong drugs and making dispensing errors,why do you still go to that Pharmacy, and importantly why have you not complained or reported them?
For the person concerned that Pharmacists are providing a service which is "way too personal" - can I ask what type of service would they prefer when discussing a specific individual and their specific medication needs?
Interestingly,in my professional experience, I have noticed that the same people who do not want to see Pharmacists have access to this information are the self-same people who complain the most when Pharmacists are unable to help them due to this lack information, (usually because to do so would be unsafe and not in the patients best interest!)
To set the record straight Pharmacists ARE professionals and DO have a set of values which they practice by - details of these professional values are contained in a publication called "Medicines,Ethics and Practice: A guide for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians" (if you are interested you will find this on the RPSGB website).
It is disappointing that so many of these people have had such negative experiences when accessing NHS services, possibly they should consider taking out private health insurance if they think so badly of the services available...
Have read all of your posts with interest. Sadly, many of the comments seem particularly ill-informed. In the interests of a balanced view I feel its worth addressing some of your readers concerns and posing a few questions of my own.
For people not happy taking drugs from anyone other than a qualified GP, can i assume you have you prescriptions dispensed at the doctors surgery rather than at a Pharmacy?
Are any of the people commenting aware that to qualify as a Pharmacist you require to obtain a Masters degree in Pharmacy and complete five years of tertiary education.
Who do people think advise Doctors on what medications to prescribe?
Pharmacists ARE a part of the infrastructure of the NHS, in order to dispense an NHS prescription you need to have a contract from the relevant Health Board.
If a Pharmacist is consistently suppling the wrong drugs and making dispensing errors,why do you still go to that Pharmacy, and importantly why have you not complained or reported them?
For the person concerned that Pharmacists are providing a service which is "way too personal" - can I ask what type of service would they prefer when discussing a specific individual and their specific medication needs?
Interestingly,in my professional experience, I have noticed that the same people who do not want to see Pharmacists have access to this information are the self-same people who complain the most when Pharmacists are unable to help them due to this lack information, (usually because to do so would be unsafe and not in the patients best interest!)
To set the record straight Pharmacists ARE professionals and DO have a set of values which they practice by - details of these professional values are contained in a publication called "Medicines,Ethics and Practice: A guide for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians" (if you are interested you will find this on the RPSGB website).
It is disappointing that so many of these people have had such negative experiences when accessing NHS services, possibly they should consider taking out private health insurance if they think so badly of the services available...
Posted by: Dirk Diggler on 8:51pm Mon 22 Oct 07
"Pharmacists" is the trendy new name for chemists, who work in chemists shops. They are at best technicians, who dole out pills and potions alongside the prophylactics and ladies' sanitary products.
They should stick to shopkeeping, and they certainly shouldn't have access to medical records. The funniest thing is when they say they know more about drugs than doctors. Aye, right.
[italic]Can I have a pack of Tampax, some paracetamol, and a bottle of Head and Shoulders. And throw in a Curly Wurly while your at it. "[/italic]
"Pharmacists" is the trendy new name for chemists, who work in chemists shops. They are at best technicians, who dole out pills and potions alongside the prophylactics and ladies' sanitary products.
They should stick to shopkeeping, and they certainly shouldn't have access to medical records. The funniest thing is when they say they know more about drugs than doctors. Aye, right.
Can I have a pack of Tampax, some paracetamol, and a bottle of Head and Shoulders. And throw in a Curly Wurly while your at it. " Posted by: Digory, Narnia on 9:09pm Mon 22 Oct 07
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes:-
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire, burn; and, caldron, bubble."
"By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes:-
Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire, burn; and, caldron, bubble."
Posted by: another pharmacist, scotland on 9:41pm Mon 22 Oct 07
I don't think it matters whether you call us pharmacists or chemists - what's in a name after all?
Pharmacists are not doctors, and do not pretend to be. Pharmacists are, however, experts in medicines and their use. As the previous poster said, we spend 5 years learning all about this - far longer than doctors spend studying this particular area. Stating this fact is not denigrating doctors, or saying that pharmacists should replace doctors - they clearly shouldn't.
Doctors and pharmacists work closely together. In many cases, pharmacists work in doctor's surgeries, sometimes behind the scenes, sometimes seeing patients. In order to do this job effectively, and with the greatest benefits to patients, access to patient's notes (with permission from the patients) is hugely beneficial.
Getting access to the relevant part of patients notes in the pharmacy - not necessarily the whole of the notes, but the parts that are relevant to treatment choices - is intended to improve patient care. Pharmacists are not going to start gossiping about patient's conditions any more than doctors do. Quite apart from having professional integrity, we are bound by a strict code of ethics and any who step out of line tend to get severely punished!
I think many of you are worrying unnecessarily.
I don't think it matters whether you call us pharmacists or chemists - what's in a name after all?
Pharmacists are not doctors, and do not pretend to be. Pharmacists are, however, experts in medicines and their use. As the previous poster said, we spend 5 years learning all about this - far longer than doctors spend studying this particular area. Stating this fact is not denigrating doctors, or saying that pharmacists should replace doctors - they clearly shouldn't.
Doctors and pharmacists work closely together. In many cases, pharmacists work in doctor's surgeries, sometimes behind the scenes, sometimes seeing patients. In order to do this job effectively, and with the greatest benefits to patients, access to patient's notes (with permission from the patients) is hugely beneficial.
Getting access to the relevant part of patients notes in the pharmacy - not necessarily the whole of the notes, but the parts that are relevant to treatment choices - is intended to improve patient care. Pharmacists are not going to start gossiping about patient's conditions any more than doctors do. Quite apart from having professional integrity, we are bound by a strict code of ethics and any who step out of line tend to get severely punished!
I think many of you are worrying unnecessarily.
Posted by: Huttcity, New Zealand on 9:57pm Mon 22 Oct 07
@another pharmacist
"The group's new manifesto, released today, urges the Scottish Government to give pharmacists access to electronic patient records. This includes both [bold]the existing Emergency Care Summary[/bold] - an electronic file which shows basic information about patients, including any bad reactions to drugs - [bold]and aspects of patients' full medical records as these are moved to a national database.[/bold]" WHY DO YOU WANT MORE?
@another pharmacist
"The group's new manifesto, released today, urges the Scottish Government to give pharmacists access to electronic patient records. This includes both
the existing Emergency Care Summary - an electronic file which shows basic information about patients, including any bad reactions to drugs -
and aspects of patients' full medical records as these are moved to a national database." WHY DO YOU WANT MORE?
Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on Tue 23 Oct 07
Why would chemists that are profit making organisations want my records. I can only assume that they have an angle and want to make more profit from it. Why do they want to know me. I dont know them. I just want a service that I am prepared to pay for. If they got my records, which they will not, they would end up in a skip as they would take to long to read at great expense to them. I think I will trust my Doctor to keep my records, intact in the practise.[bold]bold[/bold]
Why would chemists that are profit making organisations want my records. I can only assume that they have an angle and want to make more profit from it. Why do they want to know me. I dont know them. I just want a service that I am prepared to pay for. If they got my records, which they will not, they would end up in a skip as they would take to long to read at great expense to them. I think I will trust my Doctor to keep my records, intact in the practise.
Posted by: Fiona Sinclair, Ayrshire on 12:01am Tue 23 Oct 07
Sorry, folks, they've already passed the requisite laws to permit `medical` personnel who are not doctors the power of access to our medical records. See:-
http://www.bma.org.u
k/ap.nsf/Content/joi
ntinspectionbill
this refers to the Joint Inspection of Children's Services and Inspection of Social Work Services (Scotland) Bill
The above links is the written submission to the Scottish Parliament Education Committee, November 2005 The BMA voices its concerns about the powers vested in these joint inspection teams to access children's medical records, thus violating patient/ doctor confidentiality
You will also find that the databases, policies and structures are already in place to enable data sharing of personal information between `professionals` in education, health, social work and in benefits offices. You may also have noted the Sunday Herald's article on the plans to extend the data contained in concessionary bus passes for the elderly and people with disabilities. The Scottish Goverment is opposed to this.
See the link below for links to these sources of information:-
http://www.autismrig
hts.org.uk/IdentityR
egister.html
Sorry, folks, they've already passed the requisite laws to permit `medical` personnel who are not doctors the power of access to our medical records. See:-
http://www.bma.org.u
k/ap.nsf/Content/joi
ntinspectionbill
this refers to the Joint Inspection of Children's Services and Inspection of Social Work Services (Scotland) Bill
The above links is the written submission to the Scottish Parliament Education Committee, November 2005 The BMA voices its concerns about the powers vested in these joint inspection teams to access children's medical records, thus violating patient/ doctor confidentiality
You will also find that the databases, policies and structures are already in place to enable data sharing of personal information between `professionals` in education, health, social work and in benefits offices. You may also have noted the Sunday Herald's article on the plans to extend the data contained in concessionary bus passes for the elderly and people with disabilities. The Scottish Goverment is opposed to this.
See the link below for links to these sources of information:-
http://www.autismrig
hts.org.uk/IdentityR
egister.html
Posted by: Tony Schofield, North East England on 1:00am Tue 23 Oct 07
I am a pharmacist and as a consumer and member of the public I can well understand the anxiety the public has about access to their personal details. There have been enough outrages concerning abuse of privileged positions and of course some of the activities of the pharmaceutical industry and medical insurance companies beggar belief.
However I must rally to support the comments of my colleagues on this thread. Not only are pharmacists highly qualified, they are also expensively educated. To expect a nation to pay for such an education and then be happy that such an individual stands behind a counter selling toilet rolls and proprietary medicines is not sensible.
Pharmacists have considerable expertise concerning medicines, despite some of the adverse comments here it is indeed true that pharmacists know more about medicines than most doctors. A medical qualification covers many subjects and it is only after qualifying that doctors start to specialise. Pharmacists however are experts in medicines. Fact.
The biggest complaints the public have about the NHS are about access to a doctor at appropriate times. Doctors delegate significant work to nurses and can indeed delegate significant work concerning medication to pharmacists as is frequently the case in hospital. Such delegation frees up time that doctors can then spend with patients, improving access.
Chronic diseases like asthma, diabetes, High blood pressure and arthritis have been managed successfully by pharmacists as have minor ailments. It is only right that the public has the opportunity to access such skills which improves access to medication and releases doctors to do more important work. However illnesses, in the real world, don't exist in isolation so, for example, medication for arthritis may adversely affect blood pressure or asthmatic patients. That is why a pharmacist, managing a patient needs to see the full picture so that decisions are made with full access to all the co-existing factors that influence choice of drug. Not only is that more convenient it is safer for patients.
Whilst I am aware of breaches of confidence in industry, IT systems in pharmacies are as safe as anywhere else and huge penalties, including removing the right to work as a pharmacist or technician if it can be demonstrated that patient confidentiality has been breached exist in both legislation and the code of conduct of the Royal Pharmaceutical society.
It is naive to say that pharmacists are solely interested in profit and that compromises confidentialty. Since the health reforms of the early 1990's all GP practices are profit oriented small businesses (some are exceptionally profitable!) with just as much pressure as pharmacies to sell information commercially. That they haven't is down to a combination of professional integrity and professional regulation that the public has faith in. I can assure you that Pharmacy is similarly blessed.
I would respectfully request that no-one, pharmacists included, is judged by the standards of the worst. I respect the right of patients to refuse to be treated by anyone other than a doctor but many other patients have shown themselves to be happy to be treated by pharmacists. To do that effectively they need access to health records and I would urge all those getting caught up in this near hysterical opposition to consider carefully why they really oppose this development. Exercise choice for yourselves but please don't deny that choice for others when so much benefit has been demonstrated.
Respectfully
Tony Schofield
I am a pharmacist and as a consumer and member of the public I can well understand the anxiety the public has about access to their personal details. There have been enough outrages concerning abuse of privileged positions and of course some of the activities of the pharmaceutical industry and medical insurance companies beggar belief.
However I must rally to support the comments of my colleagues on this thread. Not only are pharmacists highly qualified, they are also expensively educated. To expect a nation to pay for such an education and then be happy that such an individual stands behind a counter selling toilet rolls and proprietary medicines is not sensible.
Pharmacists have considerable expertise concerning medicines, despite some of the adverse comments here it is indeed true that pharmacists know more about medicines than most doctors. A medical qualification covers many subjects and it is only after qualifying that doctors start to specialise. Pharmacists however are experts in medicines. Fact.
The biggest complaints the public have about the NHS are about access to a doctor at appropriate times. Doctors delegate significant work to nurses and can indeed delegate significant work concerning medication to pharmacists as is frequently the case in hospital. Such delegation frees up time that doctors can then spend with patients, improving access.
Chronic diseases like asthma, diabetes, High blood pressure and arthritis have been managed successfully by pharmacists as have minor ailments. It is only right that the public has the opportunity to access such skills which improves access to medication and releases doctors to do more important work. However illnesses, in the real world, don't exist in isolation so, for example, medication for arthritis may adversely affect blood pressure or asthmatic patients. That is why a pharmacist, managing a patient needs to see the full picture so that decisions are made with full access to all the co-existing factors that influence choice of drug. Not only is that more convenient it is safer for patients.
Whilst I am aware of breaches of confidence in industry, IT systems in pharmacies are as safe as anywhere else and huge penalties, including removing the right to work as a pharmacist or technician if it can be demonstrated that patient confidentiality has been breached exist in both legislation and the code of conduct of the Royal Pharmaceutical society.
It is naive to say that pharmacists are solely interested in profit and that compromises confidentialty. Since the health reforms of the early 1990's all GP practices are profit oriented small businesses (some are exceptionally profitable!) with just as much pressure as pharmacies to sell information commercially. That they haven't is down to a combination of professional integrity and professional regulation that the public has faith in. I can assure you that Pharmacy is similarly blessed.
I would respectfully request that no-one, pharmacists included, is judged by the standards of the worst. I respect the right of patients to refuse to be treated by anyone other than a doctor but many other patients have shown themselves to be happy to be treated by pharmacists. To do that effectively they need access to health records and I would urge all those getting caught up in this near hysterical opposition to consider carefully why they really oppose this development. Exercise choice for yourselves but please don't deny that choice for others when so much benefit has been demonstrated.
Respectfully
Tony Schofield
Posted by: sam, greenock on 12:51pm Tue 23 Oct 07
[quote][bold]Louisa[/bold] wrote:
Sam - Greenock at 12.29 The pharmacist may know about drugs but not about the specific nature and indication of the individual's clinical status who requires them - that is a medical NOT a pharmaceutical decision. No, absolutely no to the 'right' of anyone except the medics to call up my medical records for use in a personal health context. [/quote] Look Louisa, you might be a bit thick, but pharmacisits tend not to be, if the pharmicist had access to your records then they would make an even more informed opinion,
I'm sure Dr Shipman was well informed about clinical status, afterall his patients trusted him and he done them in.........but he's a doctor they're always right..........ha ha ha
Louisa wrote:
Sam - Greenock at 12.29 The pharmacist may know about drugs but not about the specific nature and indication of the individual's clinical status who requires them - that is a medical NOT a pharmaceutical decision. No, absolutely no to the 'right' of anyone except the medics to call up my medical records for use in a personal health context.
Look Louisa, you might be a bit thick, but pharmacisits tend not to be, if the pharmicist had access to your records then they would make an even more informed opinion,
I'm sure Dr Shipman was well informed about clinical status, afterall his patients trusted him and he done them in.........but he's a doctor they're always right..........ha ha ha
Posted by: MsJ, Glasgow on 10:37pm Tue 23 Oct 07
Louisa, you are NOT thick, you are very sensible. If a GP writes a prescription the decision is made about what is needed and a pharmacist is not there to approve the prescription.
Our medical records are confidential. End of. So no to this. Absolutely no to it. It is simply not needed.
Louisa, you are NOT thick, you are very sensible. If a GP writes a prescription the decision is made about what is needed and a pharmacist is not there to approve the prescription.
Our medical records are confidential. End of. So no to this. Absolutely no to it. It is simply not needed.
Posted by: Digory, Narnia on 10:41pm Tue 23 Oct 07
Information Sharing Facilitates matters on behalf of Information Sharers and others, not on behalf of Patients.
There is a problem with the development of Misinformation and the ability to disrupt and interfere with people's lives.
Information Sharing Facilitates matters on behalf of Information Sharers and others, not on behalf of Patients.
There is a problem with the development of Misinformation and the ability to disrupt and interfere with people's lives.
Posted by: Digory, Narnia on 10:52pm Tue 23 Oct 07
If Pharmacists are having difficulties with the manner of Administration elsewhere that is something which should be dealt with separately.
If Pharmacists are having difficulties with the manner of Administration elsewhere that is something which should be dealt with separately.
Posted by: Tony Schofield, North East England on 11:08pm Tue 23 Oct 07
[quote][bold]MsJ[/bold] wrote:
Louisa, you are NOT thick, you are very sensible. If a GP writes a prescription the decision is made about what is needed and a pharmacist is not there to approve the prescription. Our medical records are confidential. End of. So no to this. Absolutely no to it. It is simply not needed. [/quote] Actually, a pharmacist IS there to "approve" a prescription. Since a landmark judgment in the early 1970's (The Migril judgment) a dispensing pharmacist is as liable for a prescription he dispenses as the prescribing doctor. If the pharmacist is aware of a pharmacological reason why that prescription should not be dispensed he/she does not dispense it. He/she will contact the prescriber but NOT for permission.
It is a safety net that doctors value and the public has benefited from and is so "taken for granted" that it is not even realised.
Louisa, you ar not thick and I am sure you are sensible. However neither you or MsJ are truly aware of what exactly pharmacists are paid to do. Pharmacists are AS responsible (tested in law) as doctors for the appropriateness of a dispensed medicine.
MsJ wrote:
Louisa, you are NOT thick, you are very sensible. If a GP writes a prescription the decision is made about what is needed and a pharmacist is not there to approve the prescription. Our medical records are confidential. End of. So no to this. Absolutely no to it. It is simply not needed.
Actually, a pharmacist IS there to "approve" a prescription. Since a landmark judgment in the early 1970's (The Migril judgment) a dispensing pharmacist is as liable for a prescription he dispenses as the prescribing doctor. If the pharmacist is aware of a pharmacological reason why that prescription should not be dispensed he/she does not dispense it. He/she will contact the prescriber but NOT for permission.
It is a safety net that doctors value and the public has benefited from and is so "taken for granted" that it is not even realised.
Louisa, you ar not thick and I am sure you are sensible. However neither you or MsJ are truly aware of what exactly pharmacists are paid to do. Pharmacists are AS responsible (tested in law) as doctors for the appropriateness of a dispensed medicine.
Posted by: ANOTHER PHARMACIST, Edinburgh on 2:19am Tue 4 Dec 07
The postings on here to seem think that Pharmacies are only therfor
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (40)
