I think all those people, receptionist, pharmacy etc would already know the condition based purely on the medication name
So the receptionist / pharmacist need to know to check the GP's diagnosis / treatment regime?
This +1
A fried who's diabetic only found out they were on the wrong (or at least not the latest combination/variety/whatever) medication when the pharmacist asked why they weren't getting something else as well.
I guess diabeties meds are pretty easy to guess the illness from, and pharmacists probably know most illness/drug combinations, but no harm in making it easier for them is there?
Would you be angry if your GP refered you to a consultant and forewarded on your notes? They're all (GP, consultant, pharmacist)part of the treatment process?
Imagine you live in a small town and some child who goes is year eleven with your child is the person you hand your prescription for Viagra, Citalopram, Fucidin or Stelazine. Do I want them to have concrete information that tells them I have erectile dysfunction, depression, vaginal thrush or a significant psychiatric diagnosis... Not really! I only have one of those issues BTW...
Yes, but they could only do it once, then they'd be fired, same as I get to play with patented processes, if I took a photocopy of a drawing or reverse enginered something I wasn't suposed to I'd be out on my arse quicker than you can say 'youre fired'.
Bessides, your ex GF/BF probably knows all that and more, and possibly has an axe to grind and nowt to lose.
The people who saw the medication name, dose, patient name and intended use are you, and a chain of medically qualified professionals.
This is a good thing. Reduces the risk of human error and makes things safer for patients. I would much rather this, than end up with something wrong that at best didn't help me get better, or at worst did me harm.
These are professionals, trusted every day with hundreds of people's medication information. That's very different to the general public.
Interesting point and one i have pondered.
It is current 'good' practice and encouraged by PCT's and community pharmacists along with problem linkage.
The only people who see it are you, the people directly involved in your care (and have a professional duty of confidentiality) and those who you nominate to pick up your prescriptions.
It's written in common language so that YOU can understand it.
You have to think of the greater good.
It helps people know what their medicines are for and encourages compliance.
There is a surprisingly large amount of people who do not even know what they are on let alone what they take their medicines for. When it says on a tablet "take one in morning for low mood" or "take one at night to reduce cholesterol" people know why they are taking them.
Don't forget that there are a lot of elderly people on 10+ meds and it can be confusing for them...and the Dr when he/she is making a change to their meds and they don't know which one they are talking about.
You need to think beyond yourself, that is not meant to sound too condescending or critical.
I am sure that your docs would make the wording vaguer or remove it all together at your request, but it is good practice and you will not get the practice/NHS to change the entire system to suit just you.
and a chain of medically qualified professionals.
As has previously been pointed out not all those at the dispensing counter are medically qualified, neither are all those behind the reception desk at the GP surgery nor the hospital clinic (though some like to think they are).
^ but 'medically qualified' or not (I think a more helpful phrase would be 'member of a professional body' -health-working and hospital/clinic based psychologists and social workers in particular would baulk at the idea of being medically qualified 😉 ) all the people in that chain are subject to rather rigorous rules about confidentiality/data protection/information governance.
Whether professionally registered or not, all are well aware that breaches of this (whether it is being overheard discussing patients, telling an employer what is (or isn't!) wrong with their off-sick employee, looking up your own blood results, looking up your neighbours/family on electonic health records etc.) are serious if not sackable offences.
Many thanks polarisandy. A considered and reasoned response and has put the whole thing into perspective for me.
I've spoken to the practice manager. They're toning down the wording but they won't remove it altogther.
[i]They're toning down the wording but they won't remove it altogther. [/i]
So instead of:
[b]Pills for Monksie to stop him being mad as a box of frogs.
(Note to pharmacist: Seriously, the fella's batshit insane, don't look him in the eye)[/b]
they'll now say
[b]Pills for Monksie to alleviate his mild eccentricity[/b]
🙂
Hahaha..... move to Bridge Hall. It'll be mint 🙂
Nope - name of patient, name of med, instructions for taking them.
Agree with PolarisAndy 100%. I had just written a post saying the same thing, but less eloquently, then saw his.
The last time i collected a prescription the pharmacist they asked what it was for across a busy counter.
I couldn't think of any code for "an infected left bollock".....
For chronic medications the prescription needs to be 'linked' to a medical ailment. This isn't necessarily printed on the script, however (more for GP computer records/coding).
However, it's good practice to have an indicator of why the medication is being prescribed, such as "Drug X for blood pressure", "Drug Y for anxiety" etc.
Yes, it does disclose your medical history, but this could be argued that it's not 'beyond those people needing to know'.
For example, when you ask for a repeat prescription, the clerical staff will simply open your records, and see all the reasons why the meds are prescribed anyway.
It would be different if the script came into the public 'eye'.
I can see why you'd be upset at the pharmacist knowing about your 'coughing crabs', but in reality, there is a safety/standard element to be upheld.
DrP
EDIT - the other day I gave a 'whopping' dose of a certain medicine, that in most cases would have been guffawed at. However, it was indicated in this case, and necessary, and if I hadn't alluded to it's use on the script, the pharmacist may not have issued.
[i]the other day I gave a 'whopping' dose of a certain medicine, that in most cases would have been guffawed at. However, it was indicated in this case, and necessary[/i]
WCA in for his clap cream again?
I told him not to share.
Do you need a top up too?
DrP
Might as well. In the interests of cutting down on packaging, I thought you could just refill my previous container:
[img] 
[/img]
Might as well. In the interests of cutting down on packaging, I thought you could just refill my previous container:
Even for DrP, that's probably a couple of goes
I can see why you'd be upset at the pharmacist knowing about your 'coughing crabs', but in reality, there is a safety/standard element to be upheld.
I don't see why you would be "upset" at the pharmacist knowing but not the surgery receptionist? Are you a dispensing doctor?
^^ Was that for me?
[b]I[/b] wouldn't hold issue with receptionist/pharmacist knowing (about my own health).
I was simply being understanding to the OP's post - the idea being I recognise his distress at pharmacist/receptionist knowing, but it's for a safety and communication reason.
DrP
Thank you DrP. A degree of perspective has been reached. I'll ring the practice manager back and apologise for my manic rant...if she'll take my call.
