The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has delayed introducing minimum requirements for superintendent pharmacists (SPs), according to plans set out at its last council meeting.
In papers for the October 15 meeting, the GPhC said that following its consultation on new standards for SPs and new rules and standards for responsible pharmacists (RPs), published in July, it found some proposals “required further consideration and targeted stakeholder engagement” before being finalised.
It noted that 57% of consultation respondents supported introducing minimum requirements to become an SP, including requiring a “minimum number of years post-registration experience”, sector-specific experience and “ongoing post-registration professional development”.
Read more: RPS calls for ‘greater clarity’ in GPhC’s draft standards
But it said that despite there being “clear” support for minimum requirements for SPs, there was “no consensus on what these requirements should be”.
The regulator added that there are “risks if there is not careful consideration of the implications” of introducing new requirements, and that more work is needed to “explore the proposals in more detail”.
It said there is “insufficient time to do this” before December 10, when the second part of supervision legislation comes into force and the standards for SPs must be published.
“Therefore, we will be returning to this topic after the publication of the standards,” it added.
“No clear consensus”
The GPhC’s consultation also proposed requiring pharmacies to appoint a new or interim SP if the existing one leaves their role or is unable to perform their responsibilities.
It said that while 76% of respondents felt this was “reasonable”, 43% of organisations disagreed with the proposal, with feedback calling for “greater clarity about the expectations”.
The regulator recognised the challenge of responding to “unexpected absences or vacancies, particularly in smaller organisations”.
Read more: Increasing absence period may lead to remote supervision
“We propose to replace the term ‘immediately’ with ‘28 days’ as being a reasonable and proportionate timeframe for appointing a new SP,” it said.
The GPhC also consulted on retaining the rule that an RP can be absent from the pharmacy for up to two hours, which it said 74% of respondents agreed with.
But it noted that other respondents “expressed strong opposition” to the rule, with some feedback concerning the need to “take account of changing ways of working and technological developments” and offer a “more risk-based flexible approach”.
Read more: No pharmacist required - CCA calls for no time limit on RP absence
It said there was “not a clear consensus view on alternative proposals to the current rule” and that alternatives would need to be “appropriately considered and fully consulted on to ensure patient safety and maintain public confidence in pharmacy”.
The GPhC said there was not enough time to do this before the new rules and standards for RPs must be published, and proposed retaining the current two-hour rule “given the overall support from consultation respondents”.
Read more: GPhC proposes authorisation reforms in new consultation
The regulator also highlighted that its proposal for SPs to “make sure the pharmacy environment and premises safeguard the health, safety and wellbeing of patients and the public” will not be included in the standards following consultation feedback.
It said its new SP standards and RP rules and standards will “set expectations” ahead of the second stage of supervision legislation passing on December 10.
This is when pharmacists will be able to authorise pharmacy technicians to “carry out, or supervise others to carry out, the preparation, assembly, dispensing, sale and supply of medicines”.
Read more: Supervision and authorisation: what’s changing, when, and how?
“If the rules and standards are not agreed, implementation of the supervision legislation could be delayed,” the regulator said.
“This would postpone intended improvements to governance arrangements, clarity of accountability and support for the safe and effective delivery of pharmacy services.”
Sector feedback
It comes after the first stage of the supervision legislation came into force in January, allowing pharmacists to authorise “any suitably competent member of the pharmacy team to hand out prepared, checked and bagged prescriptions” in their absence.
The Pharmacists’ Defence Association warned earlier this year that the GPhC’s draft supervision standards “could undermine patient safety” unless “significantly revised”.
Read more: GPhC draft supervision standards ‘risk patient safety’, says PDA
The Company Chemists’ Association said in April that it does not agree with the GPhC’s proposal to continue with the maximum “two-hour absence period” for RPs, while the National Pharmacy Association gave its support to retaining the rule.
And the Royal College of Pharmacy – formerly known as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society – said in March that it “strongly opposed prescriptive requirements for superintendent pharmacists” such as “minimum number of years qualified”.
