Home > PJ (current issue) > News / News Centre | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7330 p873
18/25 December 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader


News summary

Related websites
“Making the best use of the pharmacy workforce” document (more)


Consultation seeks views on skill mix in pharmacy

A consultation document on making better use of a range of skills in pharmacy was launched this week by health minister Rosie Winterton.

“We need to look at a more flexible approach in how services are delivered, allowing pharmacists to make full use of their expertise in medicines with the support of all staff working in pharmacies,” Ms Winterton said.

In essence, “Making the best use of the pharmacy workforce”, looks at two issues: personal control and supervision in pharmacy. The principles underpinning the document have been agreed across the UK, but separate consultations on the details will follow in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The document begins by stating that the pharmacist should retain overall responsibility for ensuring that proper procedures are in place in each pharmacy for both dispensing and sales of medicines.

However, it suggests that a fresh look should be taken at personal control. “To support the pharmacist in offering professional services off pharmacy premises, the law will make clear that the responsible pharmacist does not have to be physically present in the pharmacy at all times,” it states. Rather than making specific proposals on how this should happen, it lists some issues on which it would like views. These include restricting the circumstances in which pharmacists may be away from the pharmacy, setting time limits on a pharmacist’s absence from the pharmacy, and requiring the pharmacist to be at the premises at certain hours of opening. Another issue is whether a pharmacist can be responsible for more than one pharmacy at any one time. It also discusses changes to supervision requirements (see Panel).

Options for supervision requirements

The document outlines a number of options for relaxing the current supervision requirements relating to the sale and supply of pharmacy and prescription-only medicines. One possibility is that a registered and suitably qualified pharmacy technician could supervise medicines sales and supply under a standard operating procedure approved by the pharmacist responsible for the pharmacy. Another option is for other registered and suitably accredited pharmacy staff, including technicians, nurses or NHS-accredited health care assistants, to take over supervision. The document suggests that this might offer greater potential for flexible use of staff, such as a nurse and pharmacist providing a range of services from the pharmacy.

A further option is to introduce remote supervision using new IT, something that is supported by the document. “The pharmacist does not need to be always physically present to exercise his/her responsibility for the safe conduct of business. Changes in the supervision requirements will support remote supervision by the pharmacist,” it states. However, remote supervision by a non-pharmacist will not be allowed.

The National Pharmaceutical Association stated that, when considering skill mix, a balance has to be struck between enabling pharmacists to get involved in cognitive aspects of the job while preserving safety assurances and the value of the availability of a pharmacist at all times on the pharmacy premises.

David Pruce, director of practice and quality improvement at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, commented: “Pharmacists already make a significant contribution to improving health and preventing illness. As part of its commitment to lead and support the development of the pharmacy profession, the Society has an ongoing programme of work to look at how pharmacy staff expertise can be best utilised.”

He added that a Pharmacy Practice Research Trust’s report into skill mix is expected early next year.

The document concludes by listing a series of questions on which it is seeking responses. Comments should be submitted by 11 March 2005.

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal