Between half and 59% of respondents to the consultation – which ran between April 7 and June 6 this year – felt that the GPhC’s proposed guidance positively impacted groups and individuals with protected characteristics.

These include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

Another 53% thought the guidance would positively impact pharmacy staff, although just 40% thought it would benefit pharmacy owners.

Read more: How can community pharmacy close its gender pay gap?

Many respondents went so far as to criticise the guidance as “merely a tick-box exercise and that no net benefit would be felt once the guidance was introduced".

Some expressed concern that complying with the guidance “could create an additional burden” for pharmacy staff and employees, although it could lead to “service improvements for patients” by making pharmacies “more inclusive places”.

The regulator gathered a total of 190 written responses to its consultation. Most (172) came from individuals and the remaining 18 were submitted on behalf of organisations.

The guidance – developed as part of the GPhC’s equality, diversity and inclusion strategy approved by the council in October 2021 – fits into the five principles for registered pharmacies.

It is geared towards helping pharmacy owners understand protected characteristics, how to support disabled employees and patients, and eradicate discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.

Read more: PDA slams ‘incomprehensible’ draft GPhC guidance on EDI risk assessments

It also includes examples of good practice, designed for pharmacy owners and staff “to think about the needs of the patients and the public in their communities”, the regulator wrote in its most recent council papers.

The regulator will vote to approve the equality guidance at its next meeting (November 10) and will publish the updated version later this year, it stated.

 

Easy to follow?

 

Most respondents (78%) thought the guidance’s structure and language “was easy to understand”.

Some specifically welcomed the GPhC’s alignment of the guidance with the five principles in the standards for registered pharmacies, “as it highlighted the link between the two and made it easier to interpret”, the regulator wrote in its analysis of responses.

However, many respondents were concerned the guidance was “overly complex or too lengthy…which could dilute the key messages.”

Some suggested reducing it “a ‘bitesize’ or simpler format to avoid repetition or unnecessary confusion for owners when applying the guidance,” the GPhC wrote.

Read more: How will the NHS plan for inclusivity in pharmacies address equality?

A little over half (61%) of respondents felt it would be easy to apply.

Although the good practice examples included in the guidance “were well received” by respondents, some thought “they needed to be expanded.”

Others said guidance was “too rigid and did not consider the challenges and nuances that different types of registered pharmacies face”.

“There were also concerns that when addressing the guidance, some owners would treat it as a tick-box exercise,” the GPhC wrote.

 

Application and enforcement

 

The GPhC received suggestions to provide “appropriate training” to pharmacy staff so they could implement the guidance.

A few respondents said the guidance could outline “what type of training is appropriate, when it is required and expectations for staff and owners in undertaking this”. Some even thought training should be “mandatory…for new starters” and that existing staff could take “a refresher” on equality issues.

“Some respondents questioned how the GPhC could enforce the guidance,” as its “vagueness…would make it difficult to impose or police”, the regulator wrote.

It received suggestions from organisational respondents to align the guidance with its inspection framework so that the GPhC could monitor how it is being enforced”.

 

Areas addressed

 

Although half of respondents thought the GPhC had covered all bases in its guidance, 25% thought the regulator had missed things out.

Many of those suggested the regulator should add references to specific minority groups, such as people with “hidden disabilities such as mental health conditions, including autism or dyslexia” as well as refugees and immigrant families. 

Organisational respondents suggested the regulator reframe its guidance “so that it is aimed at pharmacy professionals as well as pharmacy owners [so] it could support wider improvements in patient care”.

Respondents also asked that more focus be given to “staff who worked in pharmacies”.

“Many respondents who shared this view argued that the guidance was too focused on patients/the public and less so on staff,” the GPhC said.

Respondents explained that guidance “could address the pharmacy owner’s role in relation to some of the equality issues faced by staff”.