EXCLUSIVE

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has denied downgrading a London pharmacy's premises inspection report because it has no solid criteria for the excellent rating.

Jignesh Patel of Rohpharm Pharmacy in Plaistow initially received a report stating he had achieved excellent status due to a "simple admin error", GPhC head of inspections Mark Voce explained on Sunday (May 11).

The report was sent out before it had gone through quality assurance procedures, Mr Voce told C+D in an exclusive interview at the Alphega Pharmacy UK conference. Once fully reviewed, Mr Patel's rating was downgraded to good because it was not "innovative or unique" enough to warrant excellent status, he said.

Mr Patel said he was told the GPhC could not yet award an excellent rating as it had not yet agreed the criteria. But Mr Voce refuted claims that the criteria were not yet established.

Jignesh Patel of Plaistow's Rohpharm Pharmacy said he was told the GPhC could not award an excellent rating as it had not yet agreed the criteria	More on premises inspections Independents raise concerns over GPhC rating system for premises Explain how you are meeting premises standards, GPhC chief tells independents GPhC rates most pharmacies only ‘satisfactory' under pilot inspection system
	"It's not... that we haven't really thought about what excellent is," he stressed. "We've got the definition out there, but, when we looked at that inspection as whole, we didn't think it met enough of the description to warrant it."

"Obviously it's slightly unfortunate it [the original report] was sent out. It was a simple admin error," Mr Voce added.

The GPhC defines an excellent pharmacy as one that not only meets all the required standards but "demonstrates innovation in the delivery of pharmacy services with clear positive health outcomes for its patients".

Mr Patel said he was puzzled why his pharmacy, which gained access to patient records in a pioneering move in February, had failed to meet those criteria. "We provide innovative services," he argued. "We showed them [the GPhC] how we had potentially saved people's lives because we could access blood test results and see what was happening."

	What do you think about the GPhC's premises rating system?   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