Bush’s Law #6: If there is no evidence to suggest that an intervention is effective then there is no evidence to suggest that an intervention is effective
Recent events have made me reevaluate the position of evidence in pharmacy. Although I, in my practice, collect data from my work and analyse the outcomes, do other community pharmacists?
How can we prove the positive outcomes we generate without collecting data? Even if this data is collected, do we analyse them? Each contact, as a community pharmacist, we make, has an outcome. How can we prove the benefits of our daily interventions, or even if that contact actually mattered, without collecting data and then formalising the evidence to back us up?
We can’t!
Without this evidence, some academics could simply say, that every community pharmacist does not make a difference. Why? Because they need to see the evidence. Anyone who works in the community, as a pharmacist, knows the positive differences they make, but can we prove it?
According to Bush’s Law #6, community pharmacists aren’t effective. Where is that evidence and data to back our claims? Where is that randomised controlled trial large enough to prove our interventions are effective? There is so much credible work done in pharmacy. If we don’t get our act together, could the academics soon label us as the placebo effect?
