Lack of support for relaxation of personal control
There is scope for pharmacists to delegate certain tasks to other
staff, as long as clinical governance arrangements are in place,
respondents said |
Consultation by
the Department of Health on the skill mix needs in pharmacy has shown
that less than half of respondents favour redefining “personal control” in
community pharmacy so that pharmacists are not tied to their premises.
A hundred individuals and organisations took part in the consultation (PJ, 18/25 December 2004, p873) and a summary of their responses was
published last week. Participants included individual community pharmacists
and companies, primary care trusts, local pharmaceutical committees,
hospital pharmacists and pharmaceutical wholesalers.
Although 75 per cent of respondents said that the Medicines Act 1968
requirement on personal control needed to be clarified, less than half
of them supported redefinition in terms of professional accountability,
rather than physical presence at all times. But 46 per cent of all respondents
thought that accountable pharmacists could be absent from the pharmacy
for limited periods and yet remain in personal control. Some of them
believed that there was a need to distinguish between the role of accountable
pharmacists and that of any supervising, or duty, pharmacist overseeing
the dispensing, sale and supply of medicines.
One in five respondents said that the role of superintendent pharmacist
needed to be redefined and strengthened. Possible responsibilities included
ensuring adherence to protocols, overseeing clinical governance, and
ethical and legal matters.
Around 60 per cent of respondents said that rules governing the sale
of general sale list medicines in pharmacies needed to be aligned with
those for other retail outlets where there is no requirement for a pharmacist
to be in personal control and present to allow sales to take place.
A large majority (80 per cent) considered that the requirements for supervising,
dispensing and selling pharmacy medicines needed clarification and redefinition.
Of these, almost half thought that what could continue when pharmacists
were away from their premises needed to be clearer.
Just over half of respondents (53 per cent) thought that there was scope
for pharmacists to delegate tasks to staff in pharmacies where there
are robust protocols and clinical governance arrangements. However, there
was also a view that certain tasks should be reserved to pharmacists
in all circumstances, such as the clinical assessment of prescriptions.
Fifteen per cent said that pharmacists should continue to be personally
involved with the supply of certain P medicines, including those that
were newly deregulated or had potential for abuse.
One in 10 respondents said that pharmacists should be allowed to supervise
remotely activities that required pharmacist supervision. On supervision
generally, 11 per cent said that only pharmacists should supervise the
dispensing, sale and supply of prescription and P medicines, while 30
per cent thought that suitably qualified and accredited technicians could
do so. Twelve per cent thought that there was scope for other suitably
qualified staff to take on the role.
David Pruce, director of practice and quality improvement at the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society, said: “The Society recognises the need
for changes to pharmacy working practices and believes that the current
legislative requirements inhibit the development of the role and working
practices of pharmacists.”
He added that in its response to the consultation the Society had outlined
a way forward making recommendations around personal control, supervision
and training and education. Many of these recommendations had been highlighted
in the summary of responses.
“Now is the time for action and we hope the Government will consider
our proposals,” Mr Pruce concluded. |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal
Acrobat
Reader