|
Assistants face new regulation
|
Regulation of pharmacy assistants is a hot topic this week, with the
publication by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of new arrangements for
existing assistants. Known as the “grandparent clause”, they
allow existing pharmacy assistants to continue working without taking
new qualifications, providing a supervising pharmacist signs a declaration
to say that the assistant is competent. The arrangements are published
in full in a pull-out centre document in this Journal (PDF 100K).
From 1 January 2005, a minimum competence training requirement comes
into force so that pharmacy assistants (described in the Panel below)
have to hold a Pharmacy Services Scottish/National Vocational Qualification
(S/NVQ) level 2 qualification or an equivalent, or be undertaking training
towards this. This brings the requirements for pharmacy assistants in
line with those for medicines counter assistants, who have had to undertake
an accredited training programme since 1996.
Whom does it apply to?
The grandparent clause applies to pharmacy
assistants, and not to medicines counter assistants or pharmacy
technicians. The term “pharmacy
assistant”, written in the Society’s document as “dispensing/pharmacy
assistants”, includes dispensing assistants in community
pharmacy and assistant technical officers in the hospital setting.
Roles that pharmacy assistants might carry out include selling
over-the-counter medicines, taking in and giving out prescriptions,
assembling prescribed items, ordering and sorting pharmaceutical
stock and manufacturing medicinal products. |
Exempting clause: what it means
What the grandparent clause does is allow existing pharmacy assistants
to be exempt from the need to carry out the S/NVQ level 2 training.
Exemptions are on one of two grounds: either the assistant has previously
completed an equivalent course or he or she has relevant work experience.
In both cases, a supervising pharmacist has to declare that the assistant
is competent.
Sue Kilby, the Society’s head of practice, explains: “The
Society is introducing the grandparent clause because it recognises that
existing staff may already be competent in the duties they perform through
previous training or relevant work experience. The grandparent clause
thus allows for the recognition of existing staff’s competence
in their current roles and enables them to continue working from January
2005 onwards without the need to obtain a new qualification.”
Competency is assessed in 11 different areas or “units”,
although not all of these units will apply to every assistant. Assistants
will only be assessed on the basis of the roles that their job involves.
For example, one of the competency units involves preparation of aseptic
products: this is unlikely to be a role that any community pharmacy-based
assistants carry out but will be much more common among their hospital-based
colleagues.
“Relevant work experience is a term that applies to staff who are deemed
to be competent by the supervising pharmacist through work experience
in those activities,” explains Ms Kilby. She adds that the support
guide should help supervising pharmacists make a decision as to whether
or not an assistant can satisfactorily be declared competent.
The arrangements were welcomed by the National Pharmaceutical Association. “The
NPA applauds the standardisation of training for such an important category
of staff,” says Lesley Johnson, head of education and training
at the NPA. “This will help to bring all pharmacy assistants up
to a good standard.”
Assistants, too, are happy. Jean White, pharmacy assistant, Vintage Pharmacy
in Higham, Norfolk, says that the arrangements are a good idea. “Most
of us have already got a certificate on sales of medicines, and much
knowledge and experience,” she says. Pharmacy assistants can work
competently, so long as there is a pharmacist available in the background,
she comments. “However, we are always willing to learn more.” Jane
Iago, pharmacy assistant at Teville Gate Pharmacy, Worthing, is also
in favour of the arrangement: “It is a good idea, but assistants
do need to continue to keep up to date with developments in the pharmaceutical
world.”
What happens next
Ms Johnson warns: “It will be a huge task for pharmacists. They
will have to fill in a form for every assistant.”
The first step for pharmacists is to assess the qualifications and work
experience of their staff, and to identify which of their assistants
are affected by the new regulations. Next, they will have to decide whether
or not to complete the declaration of competence (included in the pull-out
document) for these assistants. One copy of the form should be retained
by the pharmacist, one by the assistant and one sent to the Society.
Is this the first step towards the Society registering assistants? Ms
Kilby comments: “Registration is only necessary at this time for
pharmacy technicians. This is because dispensing/pharmacy assistants
and medicines counter assistants either work under the direct supervision
of a pharmacist or, in the future, under a registered pharmacy technician.
Dispensing/pharmacy assistants and medicines counter assistants can be
regulated adequately by minimum training standards allied to written
standard operating procedures.”
The forms have to be filled in and returned to the Society by 31 December
2004. But Ms Johnson stresses that it is important not to leave the work
until just before the December deadline. It is worth waiting until next
week, however, when The Journal will publish further guidance and some
answers to frequently asked questions about the arrangements from the
Society.
Potential problems
What happens to assistants who have been declared competent but want
to move jobs? According to Ms Kilby, they would be exempt from having
to undertake further training only in the units in which they had been
declared competent. For new roles, top-up training would be needed:
the declaration of competence cannot be updated.
A problem might arise if an assistant, having been declared competent
by one pharmacist, makes an error while working for another pharmacist.
Who is responsible? Ms Kilby explains that responsibility lies with the
new employer. “If the new employer thought that the assistant was
not fully competent in an area where the assistant had previously been
declared as being competent, then the onus would be on the new employer
to use his or her professional judgement and take suitable steps in consultation
with the employee to decide what further training might be required.”
It might take some time to solve the teething problems but the regulation
of pharmacy assistants can only be a good thing for pharmacy and the
public. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal