Editorial

From the desk of the editor

Welcome to the May 2012 homepage edition of i2P-Information to Pharmacists. Rollo Manning has been having some time out having staples removed from the site of his open heart surgery.He is now at home recuperating in Darwin, having arrived home last Friday, beating a cold and hasty retreat from Canberra.We all wish him a speedy recovery and hopefully, he will be fit enough to contribute by next month.
This month, Pharmedia discusses the toll that is taken when someone complains about you to an authority without good cause. Well, the good news is that you can now take action to protect yourself if such a complaint is made, and that may even include action for defamation. Read about a recent case involving two doctors, with Mark Coleman drawing on personal experience to illustrate.

read more
open full screen

Columns

Recent Comments

Click here to read...

Past Editions

Volume 1 Number 1
Volume 1 Number 2
Volume 1 Number 3
Volume 1 Number 4
Volume 1 Number 5
Volume 1 Number 6
Volume 1 Number 7
Volume 2 Number 1
Volume 2 Number 2
Volume 2 Number 3
Volume 2 Number 4
Volume 2 Number 5
Volume 2 Number 6
Volume 2 Number 7
Volume 2 Number 8
Volume 2 Number 9
Volume 2 Number 10
Volume 2 Number 11
Volume 3 Number 1
Volume 3 Number 2
Volume 3 Number 3
Volume 3 Number 4
Volume 3 Number 5
Volume 3 Number 6
Volume 3 Number 7
Volume 3 Number 8
Volume 3 Number 9
Volume 3 Number 10
Volume 3 Number 11
Volume 4 Number 1
Volume 4 Number 2
Volume 4 Number 3
Volume 4 Number 4

i2P Archives

EPublications

Click here for a list of epublications

Do you have the urge to speak out?

• Printer-friendly version
• Send to friend
• PDF version
• Share

	Mark Coleman articles by this author...
Mark is a semi-retired pharmacist.

With all the change and distress that is apparent in all ranks of pharmacy at the moment, do you have the urge to lash out at someone or some organisation or just something?
All pharmacists want to evolve their version of an ethical practice, balancing some commercialism with professional core business – whether they own a pharmacy or not.
Multiple groupings of pharmacists have formed up around each special interest and this has created a range of competitive groups, some more aggressive than others, to compete for absolute dominance of pharmacy – and endeavour to create a single voice.

open this article full screen

Trouble is, that single voice has never happened, except when a backdoor deal was reached between the PGA and the DoHA some years back, imposing the PGA as the sole negotiator for all things involving government-supported health programs, including the PBS.
That role has never been accepted by the majority of pharmacists because it is simply undemocratic, automatically unpopular, and that still remains a constant.
With persistence some groups have developed a greater share of that “single voice”, but that has only been on a temporary basis until opponents reorganised themselves to hit back and score a better deal for their particular group.

i2P believes that pharmacy has set itself up for failure because the selfishness attached to the various groupings has now reached astronomical heights.
Lack of cooperation between various pharmacy groups facilitates dismemberment of the profession of pharmacy, allowing interests antagonistic to pharmacy to pick over the bones.
Ironically, this may create a world of pharmacy that even the major supermarkets may now no longer have interest in.
This is a destructive process and it is about time the various pharmacy groups looked at what they hold in common with each other and start bridge building.

Or alternatively, the time may have almost arrived when ownership of pharmacies may go open with a new retail model that might just provide a better service to the community, a supportive professional environment for individual pharmacists and a range of new directions for the whole of pharmacy. That’s a distinct possibility with a host of international models of pharmacy already established, to adapt to an Australian version.

Where is the strength for Australian pharmacists?

Does it lie with pharmacies and their franchised groups? Or does it lie with the PGA?
What about APESMA, the pharmacist trade union?
Does it lie with academia and the quality of the education product? Or does it lie with the PSA?
How about the manufacturers and their ability to influence all sectors of the pharmaceutical industry?

While all the above are significant players, none would exist without the single, most important unit of pharmacy – the qualified and highly trained individual pharmacist.

Which organisation represents them politically or in a marketing capacity?
Logically any organisation representing the professional interests of all pharmacists needs to be divorced from the influence of the supply chain, because its objectives are totally different.

Of all the groups noted above, the PSA would be the logical group to further the professional interests of pharmacists.
There has been some movement towards the promotion of clinical services for a fee, but this has yet to materialise.
Unless some form of fee for service develops, many pharmacists (including owner pharmacists) will become disenfranchised and an argument for a new group to emerge will be the result, further dividing pharmacists and dimishing their resources and effectiveness.

What seems to be wrong with the PSA approach is:

1. It has not been pragmatic enough with its rival group – the PGA,
It is a given that the PGA is better resourced financially, but more effort needs to occur to ensure development monies flow into the PSA – and not just via the route of the PGA as a grants manager. There is no future in that.

2. The PSA does not seem to have a vision for paid professional services and a plan to achieve that objective is not evident. What can pharmacists get behind?

3. There does not seem to be a distinct marketing wing to the PSA to enhance the ability to promote messages and services. This is a must!

4.There does not seem to be a resolve to take the fight up to the PGA.
While the PGA selfishly defends its attitudes on the basis that it represents the interests of its members, it is certainly not representing their interests when it virtually strangles any professional activity unless it is their biased version.
This results in a diminished pharmacy business because of a diminished pharmacist role.
What is wrong with developing a role for the professional/political interests of pharmacists, particularly pharmacist service contractors?
It can even become a registered trade union of contractor businesses, exactly like the PGA. There is a balance in that equation.

5. The other opportunity that seems to be squandered is the centralist infrastructure rather than a decentralised version down to the coalface.
While it is fine to have a national body to represent all pharmacists, it is too remote from the coalface.
The PSA needs to decentralise underneath their primary structure, much like the model evolved with the doctor divisions of general practice. The strength in that type of infrastructure is that it enables a close contact to be kept with all pharmacists (members and non-members) and can harness the energy and expertise of local people to deliver education and training that is meaningful.
I have heard reasons why this does not occur, but they do not make sense.
Having a localised point of contact would encourage membership, and would enable local political initiatives to emerge as well as community public relations that would allow the general public to understand the duality of the pharmacy profession.

The supply side of pharmacy is a valuable service and is the one most visible. It requires good management skills to organise and deliver – that is one half of pharmacy.
Once patient and drug meet up at the delivery point it then requires patient education and support through individual skills – that is the second half of pharmacy.

If a genuine partnership was to exist between the first half and the second half, we would have a dynamic pharmacist/pharmacy environment in harmony.
While the two halves remain combative, optimum pharmacy delivery and development will never occur.
If it should occur there may even be a chance to develop a peak body to represent all of pharmacy.

But perhaps we need a war first, to clear the air and establish sensible boundaries.
All pharmacists need to express a view- so speak out!

Clinical Newsfeed

Click here to read more...

Research Reports

Practice Development

Information Technology

Preventive Medicine

i2P Alliance Partners