The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7211 p203
17 August 2002

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

News summary

Related websites
National Pharmaceutical Association (www.npa.co.uk)

NPA calls on Society to halt plans for mandatory registration of technicians

The National Pharmaceutical Association says that plans for the mandatory registration of pharmacy technicians should be put on hold until the effects of standard operating procedures (SOPs) in community pharmacies can be assessed.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has decided that SOPs should be in place in all pharmacies from 1 January 2005. The Society's Council agreed in December last year (PJ, 22/29 December 2001, p895) to move towards mandatory regulation of pharmacy support staff, without setting a specific date for when this should occur. A consultation paper on support staff (PDF*, 60K) was published in The Journal in June (PJ, 22 June, p888).

In a statement issued by the NPA on 8 August, the association says that its board has considered the question of regulation of support staff on a number of occasions over the past few months. It describes the consultation document as "complicated and framed in a manner which restricted expression of views". The NPA says that because of the fundamental importance of the issue to members of the Society it has decided to issue a position paper setting out the board's views.

The position paper says that the NPA accepts the regulation of support staff through the specification of educational standards, SOPs and the continuing professional accountability of the pharmacist. However, it believes that compulsory registration of pharmacy technicians is not necessary to deliver high quality services. It says that the drive for regulation is coming from hospital pharmacy, where technicians are taking on roles outside the core dispensing role. In community pharmacy, the NPA says, there are no specific roles in the dispensing process that are not covered by the professional responsibility of the pharmacist in charge, even when they have been delegated to suitably trained staff.

"The association is not aware of any sound evidence that community pharmacists are currently putting the public at risk by delegating tasks to members of staff who are not competent to undertake them. Nevertheless ... we support the Council's decision on mandatory SOPs because this will, in practice, provide a transparent, formal risk management process. There is, however, no justification, in the public interest or otherwise, for the Council to impose mandatory registration of support staff, with all associated cost implications for community pharmacists, unless there is evidence that the SOP process has failed to achieve [better services for patients, protection of the public and a competent workforce]."

The NPA adds that registration only has any real meaning if a group of people who are registered are able to perform a task or carry out a responsibility which they cannot undertake if they are not registered. This is not the case for support staff in community pharmacies, it says.

In conclusion, the NPA's position paper recommends that no further mandatory registration should be considered until SOPs are in place and their effects have been properly studied.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society said that responses to its consultation paper received so far had identified a number of concerns that would need to be addressed. In particular, there was a need to engage with those individuals who were likely to fall within the scope of any new regulatory requirements.

The Society noted that the Association of Pharmacy Technicians believes that technicians should be regulated and that the Society is the most appropriate body to do this. In a recent survey conducted by the APT, 97 per cent of respondents supported registration with 63 per cent of respondents being APT non-members. The APT represents about 1,000 of the estimated 13,000 technicians working in hospital and community pharmacies.

  * PDF files on PJ Online require Acrobat Reader 4 or later.