Layer 1

Lawyer: Use GPhC review to scrap 'opaque' premises ratings

Noel Wardle: Ratings model "not fit for purpose"

The General Pharmaceutical Council should use its planned review of its premises ratings model to replace it with a pass or fail system, says healthcare lawyer Noel Wardle

EXCLUSIVE


The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) should use its planned review of its premises ratings model to scrap the system altogether, pharmacy lawyer Noel Wardle has said.

 

The regulator announced last week that it was committed to removing its ‘satisfactory’ rating as part of an “urgent review” of the system planned for next year.

 

Mr Wardle, partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, said the GPhC should “get rid of” the system completely as it was “not fit for purpose”.

 

“For the pharmacy profession, the general feeling is that the criteria for applying for a rating is too opaque. Pharmacists have difficulty understanding why a particular rating has been applied and the complicated inspection reports do not help,” he told C+D.

 

Instead of rating every pharmacy as ‘poor’, ‘satisfactory’, ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, the regulator should focus on “identifying pharmacies where the premises are unsuitable”, Mr Wardle said. “I would suggest that a preferable system would be to simply award each pharmacy with a pass or a fail,” he added.

 

Locum dispenser Benjamin Leon D’Montigny agreed that the ratings system should be “dropped altogether”. “Either a pharmacy is meeting its standards, or it is not and needs to improve - there is no middle ground,” he posted on the C+D website.

 

Community pharmacist Michael Franks suggested that the regulator replace its ‘satisfactory’ rating with one that stated that the pharmacy had “complied with all GPhC standards at the time of inspection and was seen to give good advice to patients”.

 

Pharmaceutical company employee Richard Judge pointed out that education regulator Ofsted had dropped its own ‘satisfactory’ rating in 2012. “The word ‘satisfactory’ gives the impression that people have just scraped through, but in fact the minimum expectation should be ‘good’," he said.

 

Last week, the GPhC promised that finding an alternative to the ‘satisfactory’ rating was the “minimum” it expected from a review of its ratings system, scheduled for after the government has made the necessary changes to medicines law. The GPhC said it agreed with feedback that levelled “particular criticism” at the ‘satisfactory’ label, and said it would be “avoided in any final ratings model”.

 

What changes would you make to the GPhC's inspection model?

 

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

4 Comments

S S Locum, Locum pharmacist

Agree with mr Noel Wardle. pass or fail. nothing else is important

Graham Phillips, Superintendent Pharmacist

So they are finally scrapping "satisfactory" ? My judgement on the organisation? "POOR"!

Keith McElrea, Pharmaceutical Adviser

Pharmacists require crystal clear guidelines on exactly what they need to do to achieve each standard and where the common mistakes that hold a pharmacy back are. It's unacceptable that a pharmacy can be rated Satisfactory but not told what steps they need to take to then improve. That is not the guiding hand of regulation, it is summary judgement.

SydBashford Sold&Retired&DeRegistered, Community pharmacist

Good....the other option was less than satisfactory !

Job of the week

Community Pharmacist - Tier 2 provided
South East England, Oxfordshire
Up to £40k per annum - negotiable