Home
Article
Archive
2000 2001
Editor:
Neil Johnston
Columnists:
Rollo
Manning
Leigh Kibby
Jon
Aldous
Roy Stevenson
Brett Clark
Ken Stafford
Pat Gallagher
Heather Pym
Simon
Rudderham
Mark
Coleman
James
Ellerson
Terry
Irvine
Roundup
Peter
Sayers
[Home] [About The Newsletter] [Topics Covered] [Testimonials]
 |
A
regular column devoted to Rural and Isolated Health Issues
(N.B.The photograph is a section of the Pharmacy, newly established
by the Tiwi Health Board, in the Northern Territory)
ROUNDUP:
Remote Pharmacy and QUM
Click on the Newsletter Reader's Forum link to access a forum from which you can express your comment or viewpoint on this article.
The author values your input, so please take the time to register your details, and participate in the only free debate on the future of Australian pharmacy.
Registration is free, and required once only, for permanent access.
You do not need to register if you only wish to view comments.
The Section 100 arrangement for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) to be available to remote health services has created a dilemma.
Where should the professional value added component of a pharmacist's responsibility to the patient be applied?
Is it the pharmacist, in a distant place to the clinic, or is it the staffs of the clinic who are in daily contact with the users of the medicine?
Let's not get carried away with the fact it should be the pharmacist.
It could well be the other health professionals on the ground at the clinic.
We should not assume that it must be the pharmacist.
Maybe the pharmacist, instead of sticking to the guidelines (for implementing QUM practices at a remote clinic) should really be passing on their knowledge to the others on the ground in the community.
This could involve the practitioners spending time at the pharmacy when "in town" and observing the ultimate Quality Use of Medicines (QUM) practices going on in the pharmacy with their public.
Pharmacists have to understand they cannot be everywhere that others may want them to be, but must ensure that there is someone who knows what QUM stands for and can put it into action.
The Pharmaceutical Society should be considering an associate membership to other health practitioners who have qualified to be QUM Practitioners in their own setting.
Why should the PSA be only open to qualified pharmacists?
Surely it is the professional practice of pharmacy per se that is to be achieved, and does it matter who does it?
Of course not - especially if they are competent.
The measure of competency should be at stake, not who actually does it.
 Previous Article |
 Article Index |
|
||||
|
||||
|
*
Please contact us if you would like further information or would like us to research additional material to publish as future articles. |
*
Don't forget to advise of any change in your e-mail address so that your subscription may be continued without interruption. |
*
Letters to the editor are encouraged, or if you have material you would like published, please forward to the editor. |
*
Any interested persons who would like to receive this free newsletter on their desktop each fortnight, please send a single word e-mail "Subscribe" |
*
|
|
*
All Communications to:
neilj@computachem.com.au |
||||
|
*
You are invited to visit the Computachem web site and check out
an organised reference site for medical or other references.
Why not try (and bookmark) the Computachem Interweb Directory for an easily accessed range of medical and pharmacy links, plus a host of pharmacy relevant links. The directory also contains a very fast search engine for Internet enquiries. You may also access the Home Page at: http://www.computachem.com.au |
||||
|
THE NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH ALLIANCE
|
Back to Article Index
Article Archive 2000
Article Archive 2001
Home