The key to achieving an excellent rating in premises inspections is risk assessment, the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC’s) chief executive Duncan Rudkin and head of inspections Mark Voce told Sigma delegates in India at the end of last month.

It’s an important piece of knowledge because, as Mr Rudkin said, inspection reports will be made available to the public following a consultation. He described their publication as a “game-changer”. That set me thinking about what else the GPhC could provide in terms of information.

Firstly, the GPhC should give pharmacy owners guidance on the risks they are expected to assess, and what kind of risk assessment inspectors will be looking for. Before the game is changed, pharmacy owners are entitled to know the rules.

Secondly, the public rating of a pharmacy is not like the display of a food hygiene certificate outside a restaurant: diners know they are being informed about hygiene, not the quality of the food or service. The present format of GPhC inspection reports would not help the public know what has been assessed.
 
Thirdly, I am pleased to see the GPhC is scrapping the “satisfactory” rating, achieved by most pharmacies so far. It would not have inspired patients with confidence in the profession because the word “satisfactory” has an underwhelming ring to it. But the GPhC needs to provide us with more information on its rationale – particularly why it is taking such a different approach to the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which inspects GP and dental practices. The CQC does not rate dental practices at all. Instead, its reports say whether, in specific areas, standards are being met.

When rating GP premises, the CQC rates practices according to five key questions.
1. Are they safe?
2. Are they effective?
3. Are they caring?
4. Are they responsive to people’s needs?
5. Are they well-led?

The first two questions mirror the legal duties involved in running a pharmacy and ought to be sufficient for the GPhC, because the other questions are more suited to GP practice than the operation of a community pharmacy (though I’m not saying pharmacists aren’t caring). Based on these criteria, the CQC can give GP premises one of the following ratings: outstanding, good, requires improvement, and inadequate.

My questions for the GPhC are: if dental practices are not rated, why must pharmacies be rated? If pharmacies have to be rated, why not have consistency across the healthcare professions and adopt the same ratings the CQC uses for GPs?

The GPhC’s statutory functions are to protect, promote and maintain the health, safety and wellbeing of the public by ensuring pharmacies adhere to its standards on specific areas, such as record keeping, SOPs, staff training, incident reporting and arrangements for keeping and handling medicinal products. Any report published by the GPhC should state in a prominent position exactly what is being rated – compliance with specific standards – so the public is not misled. If reports stray beyond the GPhC’s statutory remit, the inspection regime may be legally flawed and open to challenge in the courts.

David Reissner is senior healthcare partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys LLP ([email protected])

Do you agree with David Reissner?

We want to hear your views, but please express them in the spirit of a constructive, professional debate. For more information about what this means, please click here to see our community principles and information