The motion to undermine Pharmacy First was only a simple linctus, at best, but I’m glad the BMA gave it short shrift.
Arguing that Pharmacy First is limited in scope, and risks variable service quality and fragmentation of patient care isn’t just feeble, it actually sounds like an improvement on the patient experience afforded by some GPs.
‘Limited in scope’ doesn’t mean unfit for purpose. If indeed it means anything much, ‘scope’ is an abstract concept rooted in variability. If you must criticise a pharmacist, be precise.
Yes, among the (hopefully) thousands-to-millions of patients that eventually get treated in a high street pharmacy instead of a GP surgery, it is - very sadly - inevitable that some patients will present with superficial symptoms masking serious underlying conditions. And it stands to reason these might be spotted by a GP more readily than a pharmacist.
But this is far from always the case. No scope is infinite. No GP infallible.
And - lest we forget - no pharmacist incompetent.
Read more: Coroner: Patient overdosed after pharmacy ‘welfare concern’ missed
The idea that - in the normal run of things - anyone presenting to a pharmacist with a persistent cough, perhaps for a few weeks, wouldn’t be advised it could be masking an underlying condition is for the birds.
Besides, an awful lot of GPs have tired eyes, not X-ray ones. And for every patient that does slip through the net, thousands more will be treated quickly, as opposed to being stuck in GP surgery triage - which recently secured its own rung in hell.
As for service levels and fragmentation of patient care, if GP service levels were even remotely steady the NHS wouldn’t need to call in community pharmacy to help. Again. And patient care isn’t at risk of fragmentation. It disintegrated some time ago and needs glueing back together.
Read more: BMA distances itself from controversial Pharmacy First letter
Closing the loop on the process to treat minor ailments should, in many cases, improve it. Yes, there are certain things that a patient would rather see a GP about than a pharmacist on the high street, but the opposite is also true. And the vast majority of Pharmacy First appointments will offer a workable solution to the problem faced, and reduce the time and hassle between needing a script and getting it.
Grit your teeth, GPs
Put together, the motion didn’t justify withdrawing a penny in funding from Pharmacy First. If anything it prompts reasoning why funding for England should be increased, along with the number of services on offer.
There is no inherent safety issue that outweighs the umbrella safety issue Pharmacy First is trying to help with. Pharmacy First – or a variant of - is not a airy concept but live and expanding in NI since 2005, Wales since 2013, and Scotland since 2020. Taking potshots while Pharmacy First is climbing in England is daft. And then what?
Read more: Pharmacy bodies unite to slam ‘sneering’ GP letter
Instead of harming it, GPs should throw their weight behind a national TV campaign for Pharmacy First. They should ‘switch-on’ GP Connect. They should be telling anyone suitable to visit a pharmacy first instead.
Because given a reasonable amount of time, the likeliest outcome is that Pharmacy First will prove to be a safe service that will benefit patients, community pharmacy, and GPs – and even have a holistic benefit on the NHS.
If it can start to fly, that is.
All stakeholders need enough self-awareness to recognise that Pharmacy First is not GP-level care.
And dissenting GPs need to recognise that Pharmacy First isn’t trying to be GP-level care. It is deliberately limited in scope. The limitation is already priced in through the conditions it can treat.
Dragging it down early is a waste of time that no one needs – least of all GPs. Some of whom need to grit their teeth and have faith that a pharmacy can be a suitable place for someone with a sore throat.
