While my pharmacist for the day was taking their lunch break in the back room, and after having mentioned they would rather not be disturbed, I got to thinking: what is remote supervision, other than something technicians kind of do already?

Are we not technically remote supervising whenever the pharmacist is in the consultation room or on lunch, or having a sandwich and energy drink in the back room to keep them going through the final couple of hours until close? What’s the difference?

There are many in the sector against remote supervision [see a recent letter from contractors here]. Such an outright, uncompromising refusal is simply the mentality of a traditionalist. It offers neither an improvement nor an alternative. With remote supervision, through the unshackling of the clinical professional, access to a pharmacist would actually be increased for patients, specifically those who are housebound or unable to visit the premises. 

The pharmacist’s role is becoming more patient-centric, rather than simply being an unseen force at the back of the pharmacy premises that’s occasionally called forward to talk to a patient for a minute. This brings a new freedom that is of the utmost importance for the future of pharmacy.

It is also important to remember that legally being able to supervise medicines supply – handing the clinically assessed bag to a patient – is far less insidious than has been represented. That medication still undergoes a clinical check by a pharmacist. This does not mean the total absence of a pharmacist should ever be advocated. Without a pharmacist, there is no pharmacy – we would simply have a dispensing production line.

However, the idea of remote supervision is not complete. There are clear reservations that need to be addressed. To start with: clear lines of referral, industry standardised training and accreditation qualifications. And with the extra responsibilities that the technician will embrace there should be, quite rightly, accountability.

Removing criminal liability for inadvertent dispensing errors is but the first step. There are many chains of thought to flesh out and reservations to address. It’s something that should be explored through professional discussion.

Of course, remote supervision has not yet been fully defined, and we are in an ideal time to influence how we want it to happen. Indeed, I struggle to see it not happening, so let’s get this working in a way that is comprehensive for all involved.

Pharmacists should embrace their professional colleagues, and work together with their closest allies in an altruistic and objectively constructive team to better serve the most important aspect of our work, our patients.

Benjamin D’Montigny is a locum dispenser working in the south of England