Published by Computachem Services

P.O Box 297.
Alstonville. 2477
NSW Australia

Phone:
61 2 66285138

Every now and then something happens to give me hope that my dream of a pharmacy profession recognised and rewarded for intellectual input is not pie in the sky.
One of these fillips appeared a couple of weeks ago. Twenty or so accredited consultant pharmacists met in Perth to discuss the treatment of arthritic conditions and issues relating to NSAID therapy.
"So what?" you may ask, "Pharmacists meet for CE sessions regularly."
You're correct, but two things made this particular evening important for me.

Firstly, it was a working dinner sponsored by a drug company.
The fact that a major pharmaceutical manufacturer felt it worth while to be involved with the group indicates to me that consultant pharmacy is gaining recognition as a potential power group in determining drug usage in the community.
Hospital pharmacy has always had very good support from the pharmaceutical industry as this group can have a significant impact on what drugs are available within the hospital.
Drug Committees are usually guided by advice from the pharmacy department so it behoves the industry to acknowledge the implied power residing with pharmacists.
It may be a career limiting decision for industry sales staff to ignore hospital pharmacists, or to brush them off as unimportant.
Consultant pharmacists, at present, have little opportunity to influence prescribing habits in the community but, as medication reviews by pharmacists become more common and interaction with prescribers increases, they have the potential to guide the medical profession towards more rational use of drugs.
Consultant pharmacists have the potential to become major players in determining what drugs are prescribed in the community and I feel that the sponsor of our dinner has realised this and is "covering all bases."
I may be dreaming but "Who cares, we all need a dream to cling to."
Secondly, I was pleasantly surprised by the attitude of the three consultant physicians who were the speakers for the night.
These doctors, all highly regarded in their various fields, seemed quite at ease in recognising that the pharmacists present had an equal expertise in their chosen field (medication management).
There was none of the defensiveness that was apparent in 1998 when DVA first instituted payment for pharmacists carrying out home medication reviews.
The medical press, at that time, was quite strident in condemning the department for the heretical idea that a mere pharmacist might be able to assist a doctor in improving patient outcomes.
The bitterness evident in letters and articles was not only unnecessary but gave me cause to fear a complete breakdown in doctor-pharmacist relations.
It was very pleasing to have these three eminent doctors not only happy to discuss their decision making processes on how they treat patients, but willing to listen to the pharmacists and to accept that our profession can bring new insights that might improve treatment.
Are we possibly seeing the start of a bright new future for pharmacists?
I can but hope.

It was announced on the radio, a short time ago, that the planned increase in the patient contribution for PBS scripts has hit a snag in the Senate.
This caused the minister to raise the spectre of drugs being refused PBS listing because of an inability to fund them.
Australians have come to expect that they will have subsidised access to new drug therapies and we can expect greater and greater government emphasis on cost effective medication usage.
For years pharmacy has claimed to be the expert in quality use of medicines programmes.
Now is the time to step up and prove it.
As I have written before "Use it or lose it" and, if we lose it we may also lose the whole PBS.
Can we all afford that?

Back to Front Page