Parliamentarians who bring “toxic and difficult challenges” pose a “threat” to the expansion of healthcare workers’ scope of practice, General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) chief executive Duncan Rudkin has said.

Rudkin waded into the debate about the statutory regulation of physician associates (PAs) and anaesthesia associates (AAs), while speaking at the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK (APTUK) conference on Friday (September 6). 

He said that “critical and hostile voices within the medical profession” had “exploited” a “lack of public awareness” about these healthcare workers to try to stymie their regulation by the General Medical Council (GMC).

Read more: NHSE to fund 530 community pharmacy technician apprenticeships

And he added that the “sad story” about PAs and AAs showed how “a gap in public understanding” could threaten the expansion of pharmacy technicians’ scope of practice.

Some MPs “are coming at the issues around the workforce within pharmacy with a set of negative filters that have been influenced by that very difficult debate about these two associates”, Rudkin said.

However, he stressed that the PA/AA debate is a “very different” scenario to that of pharmacy technicians, which have been regulated since 2011.

 

“Fragile” public acceptance

 

Rudkin told delegates that the public’s expectations of their healthcare go “way beyond” what has previously been experienced as he warned that the public’s acceptance of pharmacy technicians’ role is “fragile”.

He said that after his appearance at the pharmacy inquiry in January, he had spoken to an MP who had “no awareness at all” of pharmacy technicians’ education, training or role.

He called on pharmacy technicians to “showcase [their] unique contribution to health and care as part of that wider pharmacy team” to “build public understanding” of their role.

Read more: Pharmacy technicians are entitled to be called pharmacy professionals

“Keep plugging away and telling that story and showcasing what you do, because that will help you to shape your future,” he said.

Rudkin added that the regulator is looking at expanding the use of the “potentially underused” tool of annotation, hinting at using it for pharmacy technicians as well as pharmacists.

 

Under fire

 

In June, the Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) said that it was considering legal action over the term “pharmacy professionals” to ensure patients are not “confused” by the difference between a pharmacist and pharmacy technician.

The move came after the British Medical Association (BMA) said that it was challenging the GMC through the courts to stop it from using the term “medical professionals” to describe doctors, PAs and AAs.

The PDA has been a consistent critic of the speed at which pharmacy technicians’ scope of practice has changed, with the trade union saying in March that it had raised “safety” concerns with MPs about proposals to allow them to supply medicines under patient group directions (PGDs).

Read more: PDA considers legal action over term ‘pharmacy professionals’

And in April, the PDA raised a motion to protect patients from the “potential harm” of role substitution at Scotland’s trade union centre (STUC) congress. 

The motion warned of the “potential harm from situations where there is confusion about the roles a team member undertakes or where under-qualified staff are coming under pressure to undertake activity for which they are not suitably competent”.

Despite the PDA’s concerns, C+D revealed in June that legislative amendments permitting pharmacy technicians to supply and administer prescription drugs under PGDs would come into force on June 26, after being pushed through in a pre-election wash-up.