The Company Chemists’ Association (CCA) has said that it does not agree with the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) proposal to continue with the maximum “two-hour absence period” for a responsible pharmacist to be absent from the premises.
Responding to the GPhC’s consultation on draft standards for responsible pharmacists and superintendent pharmacists, the CCA said that the “continued reliance on a fixed, time-limited absence rule is increasingly misaligned with modern pharmacy practice and the way professional responsibility is exercised”.
“The safe and effective running of a pharmacy should not be dependent on the physical presence of a responsible pharmacist given developments in technology, remote access to clinical systems, and established governance arrangements within pharmacy businesses,” it argued.
Read more: Increasing absence period may lead to remote supervision
The CCA’s response added that responsible pharmacists can “continue to exercise effective professional oversight without being physically present on the premises” if there are “appropriate procedures, safeguards and escalation mechanisms” in place.
“Digital patient medication records, real-time communication tools, remote clinical access and clear SOPs already enable pharmacists to remain engaged and accountable for the running of the pharmacy”, it continued, noting that responsible pharmacists “currently maintain responsibility even though they are not directly supervising all activities, such as when they are in the consultation room”.
Arbitrary
The trade association stressed that an “arbitrary time limit does not enhance safety” but instead “risks unnecessarily restricting future pharmacy practice”.
And it called for the GPhC to “move to a risk-based, outcomes-focused approach”, arguing that the responsible pharmacists should be “allowed to take a risk-based decision on what patient care can, or cannot, be delivered in the pharmacy when they are not physically present, in-line with the superintendent pharmacists governance-framework”.
Read more: RPS calls for ‘greater clarity’ in GPhC’s draft standards
The CCA also said that it does not agree with proposals to continue with the current “one-pharmacy rule”, arguing that “there may be circumstances in which it is appropriate for a pharmacist to temporarily take on the responsible pharmacist role for a pharmacy remotely, or for more than one pharmacy”.
This could include “emergency situations” such as extreme weather events or where patient care could be “seriously compromised if individuals are unable to access their essential medicines” and in these cases, “a degree of flexibility is necessary to ensure continuity of care”, it said.
The body added, however, that in the “vast majority” of circumstances it is “appropriate” than a responsible pharmacist can only be responsible for one pharmacy premises at any given time.
“Significant disruption”
The CCA’s response also said that it does not think the draft standards will “strengthen the safe and effective running of a pharmacy business” or “clarify the role” of the superintendent pharmacist.
“Many of the requirements described reflect activities that superintendent pharmacists are already undertaking as part of established professional practice,” it explained.
The draft standards “risk restating existing responsibilities rather than providing clearer accountability or practical differentiation between the superintendent pharmacist and responsible pharmacist roles”, it added.
Read more: GPhC proposes authorisation reforms in new consultation
The body noted that it does not support “introduction of additional minimum requirements for a pharmacist to become a responsible pharmacist”, arguing it would be “disproportionate” and cause “significant disruption to the community pharmacy network”.
“Introducing additional post-registration barriers raises fundamental questions about the purpose and adequacy of existing education and training pathways,” it added.
It comes after the National Pharmacy Association’s (NPA) response to the GPhC draft standards issued its support for keeping the maximum two-hour absence period for responsible pharmacists from the premises.
Read more: Supervision and authorisation: what’s changing, when, and how?
It warned that if this time period were to be increased, it could “lead to remote supervision and reduce patient access to a pharmacist”.
The NPA also said that it “agrees with proposals to retain the ‘one-pharmacy rule’ for responsible pharmacists”.
