Comment piece from Mark James
23 June 2008
The recent poll conducted by C&D concerning the relationship between pharmacists and GPs highlighted some interesting results which are a cause for both optimism and concern.
C&D asked pharmacist when they last had a business meeting with their GP. On the positive side, over a quarter of those who responded stated that they had had a meeting within the last two weeks. Worryingly, however, almost two thirds had not met their local GPs in over a year.
It is increasingly clear that if pharmacy is going to play a more prominent role in providing patients with primary healthcare services then the relationship between pharmacists and GPs needs to improve considerably.
We need to move from a position of antipathy at best or downright hostility at worst to one of mutual respect and collaborative working. GPs need to learn to value and trust their local pharmacies. They need to understand the benefits an increased role for pharmacy will bring directly to them as GPs and to patients. That will not happen overnight, but the conversation needs to begin at some point.
Similarly, pharmacists need to recognise how important it is to build GPs' understanding of what pharmacy can offer to meet local primary healthcare needs. If you can win their support then getting PCTs to commission new services from pharmacy will be a much easier task.
An inspiring example is David Smith of Peak Pharmacy in Derbyshire, who won C&D's MUR Champion of the Year award at their inaugural awards ceremony. Engaging local GPs was key to his success in hitting his MUR targets and his PCT said that more cost-effective prescribing has resulted from his MURs.
Too often what we hear is not how best to work together in the interests of patients, but public bickering and professional rivalry. Take as an example the recent annual conference of local medical committees which passed a motion criticising the role which pharmacies could play in the proposed national vascular screening programme.
The Pharmacy White Paper clearly recognised the need for better inter-professional working in England and the Department of Health is organising a consultation exercise with stakeholders to identify how best to achieve this.
That is welcome. However, here and now at a local level those conversations and that relationship building could and should begin. As the C&D poll demonstrates almost a quarter of those who responded are already engaging their local GPs.
The initiative to start that dialogue is more likely to come from pharmacists than GPs. After all, this is a big change in mindset for GPs who, like pharmacists, also have more than enough workload to deal with.
I believe that GPs are not necessarily anti-pharmacy; rather no-one has explained to them at a local level the contribution which pharmacy can make and how that helps not hinders GPs in their work. In the absence of a persuasive case based on meeting local patient needs it is unsurprising if some GPs take a stance which is unhelpful or hostile to pharmacy.
It need not be that way. GPs and pharmacists are natural professional friends not foes. I hope if C&D conducts the same survey in a year's time we will see the results reversed with the majority having had business meetings with GPs within the last two weeks.
