The National Pharmacy Association (NPA) has given its support to the maximum “two-hour absence period” for a responsible pharmacist to be absent from the premises.
Responding to the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) consultation on draft standards for responsible pharmacists and superintendent pharmacists, which closed last week, it said that the maximum two-hour period prevents “unnecessary closures and inconvenience for patients”.
But it warned that if this time period were to be increased, it could “lead to remote supervision and reduce patient access to a pharmacist”.
Read more: RPS calls for ‘greater clarity’ in GPhC’s draft standards
The GPhC’s consultation proposes to “continue with the present rule that allows the responsible pharmacist to be absent from the pharmacy for up to two hours”.
It clarifies that if there is more than one responsible pharmacist scheduled during the pharmacy’s business hours, “the two-hour limit applies to the total time when any of them are absent”.
And it notes that “if reasonably practicable”, the responsible pharmacist “must be contactable by other pharmacy staff while they are absent” and must also “be able to return to the pharmacy premises with reasonable promptness”.
“Radical change”
The NPA’s response said that it “agrees with proposals to retain the ‘one-pharmacy rule’ for responsible pharmacists” which sets out that they can “only be responsible for one pharmacy premises at a time”.
But on the question of minimum requirements to become a superintendent, it raised concerns that “timed served is not a guarantee of suitability for the role”.
The body instead suggested that “competency-based requirements such as evidence of leadership skills” should be used.
Read more: GPhC proposes authorisation reforms in new consultation
It stressed “there is no reason to set minimum requirements for a pharmacist to become a responsible pharmacist”, arguing that “every pharmacist qualifies with the professional ability to act as a responsible pharmacist”.
The NPA also asked for “more guidance” from the GPhC on how the new authorisation rules that come into effect at the end of the year – and allow pharmacists to authorise pharmacy technicians to hand out checked and bagged prescriptions in their absence – will work.
And it also called for “clarity on authorising controlled drugs”, noting that existing standards “do not cover the use of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence”.
Read more: Supervision and authorisation: what’s changing, when, and how?
NPA director of corporate affairs Gareth Jones said that as changes to authorisation “could mark a radical change to community pharmacy practices from the end of this year”, it is important to get the standards “in fit shape for securing patient safety while also facilitating a multiplicity of business models and an ever-expanding range of clinical services”.
It comes after the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) urged the GPhC to provide “greater clarity” in its draft standards last week, calling for “competence-based requirements, clearer regulatory alignment, and practical consideration of challenges faced across different pharmacy settings”.
