RPS clarifies stance on remote supervision after pharmacists’ concerns
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) has clarified its position on remote pharmacy supervision following backlash from pharmacists on Twitter.
In its response to a government consultation on the “roles and responsibilities of pharmacy owners, superintendents and responsible pharmacists” – which closed on Tuesday (September 11) – the RPS said it was in favour of allowing regulators to make exceptions to the rule that responsible pharmacists can only be in charge of one pharmacy at a time.
“Being the responsible pharmacist in charge of one pharmacy at any one time should be the norm,” the RPS said. “We expect any regulator to make this clear but to allow exceptions for emergencies where patient care would be compromised, such as extreme weather or a pandemic situation.”
Following the RPS statement on Wednesday (September 12), pharmacists raised concerns on Twitter that the society was condoning the running of pharmacies without a pharmacist present.
Community pharmacist Sham Kiani said the RPS’s statement was “remote supervision via the back door”, while Tohidul Islam, founder of The Pharmacist Cooperative, said he was rethinking his membership as the society's “tacit approval of remote supervision…doesn’t represent me or the majority of our profession”.
Further clarification
In a further statement issued yesterday (September 13) afternoon, RPS president Ash Soni stressed: “The RPS has always been clear that every pharmacy should have a responsible pharmacist.”
Both the organisation’s policy summary and its latest medicines, ethics and practice guide “clearly” reinforce its view, Mr Soni added.
The RPS said that a responsible pharmacist should be allowed to supervise more than one pharmacy “only in emergencies”.
“We will be challenging the General Pharmaceutical Council to make sure there is a defined and specific description of the ‘exceptional’ circumstances where pharmacists, not employers, would use their judgement to make sure patients have access to essential medicines,” Mr Soni said.
“We recognise there is a spectrum of views and will make sure members have opportunities to shape this work.”
Read the RPS’s response in full here.
How did the other pharmacy bodies respond?
In its consultation, the Department of Health and Social Care board set up to ‘rebalance’ pharmacy legislation asked: Do you agree that the pharmacy regulators should have the power to make an exception to the general rule that a responsible pharmacist can only be in charge of one pharmacy at one time?
The National Pharmacy Association (NPA): Consultation “rationale is unclear”
“The NPA policy does not support remote supervision, for example for the responsible pharmacist to be in charge of more than one pharmacy at one time.
“It is unclear from the rationale outlined in this consultation as to the criteria that would be presented in order for the regulator to make an exception to this rule. The NPA asks as to whether this would be in routine circumstances or in exceptional cases such as adverse weather conditions or a ‘major incident’ situation.”
Read the NPA’s response in full here.
The Company Chemists’ Association (CCA): Change rules only in “rare force majeure exceptions”
“Overall, we continue to support the principle of ‘one pharmacy, one pharmacist’ because to remove this would be to materially change the role and nature of the responsible pharmacist.
“However, we agree in principle that pharmacy regulators should have the power to make exceptions to the rule that responsible pharmacists can only be in charge of one pharmacy at a time.
“We could particularly envisage that there may be some rare force majeure exceptions where the responsibilities of the actual or intended responsible pharmacist could be temporarily taken on by a pharmacist already fulfilling the duties at another pharmacy.”
Read the CCA’s response in full here.
The Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA): Patient safety is at risk
“This would create an unacceptable risk to patient safety and expose pharmacists unfairly to criminal and civil prosecution and regulatory sanctions, in working conditions that at present are poorly regulated, and for activities that occur in pharmacies in which they are not even present.”
Read the PDA’s response in full here.
The Twitter reaction
When the gates open it will most definitely be exploited by companies. Many already have protocols in place in the event remote supervision is allowed. If it is allowed very rarely and is successful, then they will try and take it to the next stage. What defines emergency?
— Umer Ayyaz (@UmerAyyaz91) September 13, 2018
People may call me a fool (and probably do behind my back) but I'm not overly pessimistic about the @rpharms response on the "RP matter"
— Darren (@PharmacistDaz) September 12, 2018
It depends how it is framed if it goes under the auspices of the regulator.
I remember one year walking miles between 3 pharmacies in a town
This isn't what is being said. Supervision is governed by a separate piece of legislation. This proposal re: RP regs is around exceptional circumstances for example a dispensing robot in a separate building - NOT remote supervision.
— David Gallier-Harris (@GallierHarris) September 13, 2018
Exceptional circumstances get diluted over time. Thin end of wedge.
— Mike Hewitson (@MikeHewitson1) September 13, 2018
I still do not understand the problem this is intended to solve. Please can someone involved in the RBB explain to me what they are trying to achieve.
Would expectional circumstances include bad weather, when thru can't find a locum cover or a company simply can't find cheap locums? Whats the exact definition of "exceptional circumstances"?
— Tohidul Islam MRPharmS (@TohidMPharm) September 13, 2018
What do you think about the RPS's statements?