Guest post - Social media and blogs

I've not blogged for a while, so to kick things off here's a guest post written by a pharmacist whose identity I know but who wishes their post to be anonymous.

Social media and blogs are just what the internet was designed for.  The ability for anyone who has access to a computer anywhere to find out what someone is thinking on the other side of the world - in “real time”.

Just let that sink in. In Real Time.

Not 3 weeks later when a copy of a news paper or a journal lands on your mat.  But instantly. And it’s the views of a “small person” (in relation to a world leader).  And what’s even more amazing is that you can reply back, in real time....

Just take a moment to let that sink in.......

You can instantly communicate with someone, articulate your thoughts - disseminate ideas - discuss and learn.....all in the time it takes for a few key strokes to happen.

I would argue that this has been the greatest achievement of the late 20th/early 21st century...and...its greatest negative.

Take for instance right now.  I’m sat at a table, with my ear phones in, typing this into my phone whilst two men have a face to face conversation about all sorts whilst drinking tea or coffee.

I am totally disconnected from “reality” as I’m immersing myself about a blog to do with the digital world.

And there is one of the, if not the biggest drawback of being connected/being online. 

We lead so much of our lives online now, the lines blur and merge.  For youngsters it may even be able to not differentiate - to them it’s just life.

As more people go online - so it therefore means their work follows.  This is all good....but also bad.

People spend what seems like every waking moment cataloguing, replying, posting, liking, disagreeing, re-posting.  

There never seems to be a switch off.  Even on holiday - there seems to be an intrinsic need to take a selfie from a far flung shore or a picture of a relaxing alcoholic drink somewhere warm.

I’m just as guilty of all of the above.  I’ve been involved in the digital world from the early 1990’s, I’ve seen the evolution from message boards to social media platforms and have been involved in them all.

And whilst I still have “e-friends” from the very beginning on IRC (internet relay chat)....I’ve still not met some, across the various platforms, in real life. 

I do wonder looking back at nearly 25 years of internet connectivity and contrast to today - are we spending too much time online?

Everything is online in one form or another. 

But is this a good thing for us?

I am starting to feel that for professionals it isn’t.  We need a break from being online for our own sanity.  People seem to just live and breathe work online from the moment they turn their phone on/wake up until they go to bed/turn their phone off.

It’s instant gratification.

By that I mean you’re always checking to see what people have said, have people replied to something you posted or replied to something you have replied to.....it is extremely addictive and also very destructive.....

Instagram, snap chat (snap chat filters), Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook; where does it end????

So whilst you read this, smile at the irony of me saying “disconnect more”.......

And then disconnect - have a day off, go for a walk in the woods, go swimming, read a book and listen to the radio or your favourite music, talk to someone random. Revel in human-human interaction!

The author is a practising community pharmacist who has been qualified for 20 years.

Administration of prescription only medicines - settling a dispute, the final part

Further scrutiny of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and discussion yesterday with expert colleagues has brought me to the conclusion that I was wrong.  This causes me much distress.  Not that I could be wrong, I sometimes am though not that often, but because the Regs leave the administration of non-parenteral POMs effectively unregulated.

In most healthcare settings additional governance is delivered by treating non-parenteral POMs in the same way as parenteral POMs, so administered by health professionals and prescribed or authorised under PGD.  Ambulance services appear to be the only health sector allowing unregistered staff to administer non-parenteral POMs under a local protocol.

Hmm.

Administration of prescription only medicines - settling a dispute: part 2

Ah well, my initial idea didn't stand up in court.  I accept @aptaim's comment that 'administration' inherently contains an element of supply and 'supply' (as defined in the Regs) does not apply.

I'm reviewing the other relevant Provisions of the Regs to see if anything negates the interpretation used by ambulance services.  I've not found anything yet...

If this interpretation is not negated then it opens up a spectrum of opportunities for administration of non-parenteral POMs by a range of persons operating within a regulated service under local protocol.

Hmm

Administration of prescription only medicines - settling a dispute

It's common practice in ambulance services for staff members, both registered and unregistered, to administer non-parenteral Prescription Only Medicines to patients under the 'authority' of locally drawn up organisational guidelines.  The argument is that anyone can legally administer a non-parenteral POM and the ambulance service can 'possess' the POMs so no further legal authority is required to administer them.  This article in the Journal of Paramedic Practice covers the rationale.

I dispute that this is a correct interpretation of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, as if this were the case there would be limited need for the exemptions in Part 12 Chapter 3 - for instance why do other healthcare services bother using Patient Group Directions for administration of non-parenteral POMs if a local protocol would do?

So I refreshed my memory of the HMR and gave it some thought.  Here is my understanding of the Regs.

Provision 214 states:
(1) A person may not sell or supply a prescription only medicine except in accordance with a prescription given by an appropriate practitioner.
(2) A person may not parenterally administer (otherwise than to himself or herself) a prescription only medicine unless the person is - 
     (a) an appropriate practitioner other than an EEA health professional; or
     (b) acting in accordance with the directions of such an appropriate practitioner.

• From 214-2 it can be deduced that a person MAY administer a non-parenteral POM without being either an appropriate practitioner or acting in accordance with the directions of one.  
• Sale, supply and administer are three distinct activities, defined in the Regs. 
• A person could administer a POM to a patient, with no additional authority, providing the patient legally possessed the POM. 
• If the patient didn't possess the POM, the person would need to SUPPLY the POM to the patient prior to administering it.  Supply is not permitted under 214-1. 

 I rest my case...