The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 280 No 7484 p16-17
5/12 January 2008

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 60K, Acrobat Reader

• The profession (4)
• Controlled drugs
• Supervision
• Influenza
• Prescribing (2)
• Glaucoma care
• Drug development
• Christmas

Letters to the Editor

Supervision

Pharmacies without pharmacists

From Mr M. K. Astbury, MRPharmS

It might no longer be “ask your pharmacist” week, it may be “ask where is your pharmacist week”. The crown jewel of pharmacy is our accessibility to a highly qualified healthcare professional.

It is being proposed in the Department of Health’s Responsible Pharmacist Regulations that pharmacies could operate for up to three hours without a pharmacist. What has not been said yet is whether, if a pharmacist sticks his head in a pharmacy for five minutes, the pharmacy can then operate for a further three hours without a pharmacist.

How have we got here? In fairness to the Department of Health it has taken its initial lead from the “making the best use of the pharmacy work force” consultations published some three or more years ago.

I detail below three important proposals where the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s opinions differ from the Department of Health’s:

• The Society believes that a pharmacist must only be responsible for one pharmacy at any one time. The DoH may allow exceptions.

• The Society proposes that in a single day a pharmacy must not operate for more than two hours without a responsible pharmacist. It is of paramount importance that patient safety is maintained

A unique selling point of pharmacies is that members of the public can seek expert advice about their medicines and health without the need for an appointment. It would be of concern to the Society if this important quality service were to be jeopardised by a pharmacy operating for more than two hours in a given day without the presence of a responsible pharmacist. The DoH policy is mentioned above.

• The Society believes that an audit trail of a pharmacist’s absence and reasons for the absence needs to be maintained. Therefore the reason for the responsible pharmacist’s absence from the pharmacy should be recorded.

In addition, regulations should specify the need for the responsible pharmacist to be able to justify his or her absence, but professional guidance should exemplify what is justifiable. The DoH is not proposing that a record of reason for absence needs to be maintained.

The responsible pharmacist consultation closes on 20 January 2008. These regulations will correct a number of anomalies that have developed in pharmacy due to interpretation of the 40-year-old 1968 Medicines Act.

I urge the profession to respond to this DoH consultation, even at this late stage.

Martin Astbury
Vice-President
Royal Pharmaceutical Society

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Controlled drugs)
Next Topic (Influenza)