RPS pledges ‘direct involvement’ in resumed pharmacy supervision talks
The RPS has pledged to be “directly involved” in any discussions around proposed changes to pharmacy supervision, as sector bodies resume talks.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) will “speak for our members and the public who depend on pharmacy services”, it has said in response the news that the Association of Independent Multiple Pharmacies (AIMp), the Company Chemists’ Association (CCA) and the National Pharmacy Association (NPA) have formed a cross-sector group to “refresh” some aspects of pharmacy supervision.
“[The] RPS is clear that access to a pharmacist to provide the clinical assessment and assurance for safety of medicines in community pharmacies is absolutely vital, and that pharmacies cannot run without a pharmacist,” president Sandra Gidley told C+D yesterday (May 6).
“Pharmacists must be at the centre of all pharmaceutical services recognising their unique role in helping to keep the public safe.”
In a joint statement on Wednesday (May 5), AIMp, the CCA and the NPA stressed that discussions will not focus on remote supervision, and the aim is for “the pharmacist presence in the pharmacy to become more, not less, visible to patients”.
Ms Gidley added: “Patients must continue to benefit from direct access to advice from a pharmacist.
“The increasing clinical role and service provision we are seeing from community pharmacies must continue to grow at pace, including enabling patients to have better access to pharmacist independent prescribers within their communities.”
It is vital that all elected to the boards are against supervision by those other than pharmacists.
— martin astbury (@martin_astbury) May 5, 2021
Wales and Scotland have been supportive in the past. EPB has been on a knife edge.
We cannot let contractors decide the fate of the supervision law. https://t.co/BqZT4UdvEx
No conversation about us, without us. @ChemistDruggist https://t.co/uM4HnEu0Rd
— Vote Thorrun RPS EPB - #YourVoiceHeard (@pharmthorrun) May 5, 2021
Pharmacists. EVERYWHERE. (Including in pharmacies all the time) https://t.co/Q1gvrTlJlu
— Vote Thorrun RPS EPB - #YourVoiceHeard (@pharmthorrun) May 5, 2021
This is one of the most important discussions and decision we will need to make for a very long time. A #pharmacy without a #pharmacist is a shop that cannot do or sell anything aka pointless. Progression is important but not to the detriment of the sector and/or profession https://t.co/VqpQBgAIWk
— Vote Jay #RPSelections EPB #yourvoicematters (@JayBadenhorst) May 5, 2021
What are everyones thoughts on what this could mean?
— Sarwar Shah (@SarwaRxShah) May 5, 2021
Whatever discussions take place I hope that there is transparency and pharmacists are involved in decisions. How much influence will @the_pda & @rpharms have in these meetings and will they ensure to obtain views of members. https://t.co/ovFKfAi0oA
In 2018, the RPS had to clarify its position on remote supervision following backlash from pharmacists on Twitter. Former president Ash Soni said at the time that the RPS believes “every pharmacy should have a responsible pharmacist”, who should be allowed to supervise more than one pharmacy “only in emergencies”.
Do you agree that some aspects of pharmacy supervision need updating?