The Pharmacists' Defence Association (PDA) plans to show the government the dangers of allowing technicians to operate in the absence of a pharmacist.

The Department of Health (DH) last year announced plans to reassess the supervision of pharmacies, as part of its "rebalancing" of pharmacy regulation. The DH has not provided any details of these plans, but the PDA said last week (April 30) that it was “very concerned” the government would allow technicians to dispense prescriptions and sell P medicines without a pharmacist present. 

It has launched a survey for its members to suggest scenarios in which a pharmacist's absence could endanger the public, as well as real-life examples when their presence has prevented patient harm.

The PDA was worried that technicians left without a pharmacist's supervision would be unable to identify if a patient needed an "urgent clinical intervention", it said. It could also set a precedent that would ultimately lead to pharmacies being "allowed to operate without a pharmacist at all", the organisation stressed.

When questioned about the PDA's argument, the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK (APTUK) directed C+D to a 2013 "position statement" that supported the "general principle" of pharmacy technicians being able to supply medicnes under a patient group direction (PGD). "Where any new role is proposed for pharmacy technicians, it should be the subject of a rigorous risk assessment and risk management process," APTUK said in the document, in which it refuted the idea that technicians operating under PGDs would reduce "the pharmacist presence".
 

'No doubt' that rules must change

The PDA said it was in "no doubt" that supervision rules needed to be updated, but added that these rules should make pharmacists more - not less - accessible.

"The PDA has consistently argued that operating a pharmacy in the absence of a pharmacist will impact upon the safety of the public [and] will damage the profession. It will also harm the unique feature of community pharmacy - the place that provides access to a healthcare professional often for hours longer than those of a GP surgery," it said.

The idea of remote supervision had first been introduced as a way to free up pharmacists to "deliver a range of new services in the community", the PDA said. But the organisation claimed that the over-supply of pharmacists meant these “opportunities can be easily delivered... without the need for the premises to be left with no pharmacist”.

Last year, the DH called on pharmacists and technicians to share their views on supervision rules before it proposed changes to the law.

What do you think about the PDA's stance on the role of technicians? 

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