Technicians or patient advocates? − still a valid question
- 60 Downloads
- 10 Citations
Abstract
New legislation went into effect in Iceland in March 1996 making it the first Nordic country to liberate their drug distribution system. The term liberalization implies the abolishment of the professional monopoly in that ownership was not tied to the pharmacy profession anymore. Focus group discussions with community pharmacists in the capital area Reykjav¡k and rural areas were employed to answer the research question: How has the pharmacists' societal role evolved after the legislation and what are the implications for pharmacy practice? The results showed firstly that the public image and the self‐image of the pharmacist has changed in the short time since the legislative change. The pharmacists generally said that their patient contact is deteriorating due to the discount wars, the rural pharmacists being more optimistic, and believing in a future competition based on quality. Secondly, the results showed that the pharmacists have difficulties reconciling their technical paradigm with a legislative and professional will specifying customer and patient focus. This study describes the challenges of a new legislation with a market focus for community pharmacists whose education emphasized technical skills. This account of the changes in the drug distribution system in Iceland highlights some of the implications for pharmacists internationally.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Anon. Act on Pharmaceuticals No. 108. Reykjavík: The Ministry of Health and Social Security, 1984.Google Scholar
- 2.Anon. Act on Pharmaceutical Distribution No. 30. Reykjavík: The Ministry of Health and Social Security, 1963.Google Scholar
- 3.Anon. The Pharmaceuticals Act No. 93. Reykjavík: The Ministry of Health and Social Security, 1994.Google Scholar
- 4.Anon. Regulation on pharmacy licensing and pharmacies No. 426 (in Icelandic). Reykjavík: The Ministry of Health and Social Security, July, 1997.Google Scholar
- 5.Ólafsson Ó, Grímsson A. New legislation on the distribution of drugs in Iceland – The legislators' intentions and evaluation of the reality after 2 years (in Danish). In: The Nordic Pharmacy Congress Book of Abstracts (Abstract number AF.12), Copenhagen, Denmark, June 7, 1998.Google Scholar
- 6.Buerki RA, Vottero LD. The purposes of professions in society. In: Knowlton CH, Penna RP, eds. Pharmaceutical Care. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1996:3-17.Google Scholar
- 7.Hepler CD, Strand LM. Opportunities and responsibilities in pharmaceutical care. Am J Hosp Pharm 1990;47:533-43.Google Scholar
- 8.Knowlton CH, Penna RP. The pharmacist and pharmaceutical care. In: Knowlton CH, Penna RP, eds. Pharmaceutical Care. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1996:243-56.Google Scholar
- 9.Søndergaard B, Thorleifsson S, Herborg H, Frøkjær B, Hepler CD. Cost-effectiveness of a pharmaceutical care program to asthma patients. Hillerød, Denmark: The Danish College of Pharmacy Practice, 1997.Google Scholar
- 10.Anon. Section for Community Pharmacists – Professional Symposia and Section Programmes, Federation Internationale Pharmaceutique (FIP), The Hague, The Netherlands, September 1-4, 1998.Google Scholar
- 11.Kitzinger J. Introducing focus groups. BJM 1995;311(July):299-302.Google Scholar
- 12.Hassell K, Hibbert D. The use of focus groups in pharmacy research: processes and practicalities. J Social Administrative Pharmacy 1996;13(4):169-77.Google Scholar
- 13.Morgan DL. Focus groups as qualitative research. London: Sage, 1988.Google Scholar
- 14.Anon. Yearly report of the Pharmaceutical Society of Iceland (in Icelandic). Reykjavík: Pharmaceutical Society of Iceland, 1998.Google Scholar
- 15.Oppenheimer M. The proletarization of the professional. In: Halmos P, ed. Professionalization and Social Change. Sociological Review Monograph No. 20. University of Keele, 1973.Google Scholar