
Jeannette Howe: responsible pharmacist regulations are workable
Regulations setting out the roles of responsible pharmacists in community pharmacies are expected to be laid before Parliament by the end of September 2008, according to Jeannette Howe, head of pharmacy at the Department of Health, who was speaking at the British Pharmaceutical Conference held in Manchester from 7–9 September 2008. The regulations will come into force on 1 October 2009.
Mrs Howe explained that ministers have deliberately not made the regulations too complex or detailed and that further practical information on implementation will be set out in two sets of guidance — factual guidance issued by the UK health departments, and professional standards and regulatory guidance issued by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland.
“By structuring it in that way it provides a more flexible approach so that we can respond to developments in the future,” she said.
She also indicated that the regulations could later be reviewed in the light of experience.
Priya Sejpal, head of professional ethics at the Society, said that the Society is aiming to publish professional standards and regulatory guidance three months in advance of the regulations coming into force.
“These standards will support the Code of Ethics. They will detail the ‘must dos’ and ‘should dos’ of the responsible pharmacist. The regulatory guidance will also describe how those standards will be enforced,” said Ms Sejpal.
She added that a steering group will be convened to consider the detail of the standards and will comprise representatives from each of the three devolved countries, as well as patients, pharmacists and technicians from a variety of backgrounds. The standards will be subject to an eight-week public consultation at the beginning of 2009.
Rob Darracott, chief executive of the Company Chemists’ Association, drew attention to several practical issues that he believes need to be addressed, for example, clarification of the separate roles of, and relationship between, superintendent pharmacists and individual responsible pharmacists.
Mark Koziol, chairman of the Pharmacists’ Defence Association, argued that the responsible pharmacist regulations add “a quantum leap” in responsibility to the current concept of personal control.
Referring to the additional statutory duty of responsible pharmacists to secure the safe and effective running of the pharmacy, he said: “Let us not sleepwalk into a scenario where we take a massive heap of additional responsibility onto the shoulders of the individual pharmacist and simply say that this is merely a rebadging of the old personal control regulations because . . . it is something far more significant than that.”
He believes that there are serious practical operational issues that are still to be resolved and suggested that “we go back to the drawing board”. He added that close collaboration is needed between representatives of the Government, the regulator, employers and employees.
However, Mrs Howe emphasised that the regulations largely reflect what goes on within the profession now. “I think the regulations are practical and can be made to work,” she said.
See also Letter from journals



Comments
RP and SOPs
Conference Presentations
The RP regulations have the
The RP regulations have the potential to be one of the best developments pharmacy has seen in years.
The manner in which they are going to be introduced may well lead to them being the worst development pharmacy has ever seen.
At BPC there was no consideration given to what will happen if a pharmacist does not feel happy to be the "responsible pharmacist" This situation is possibly more relevant (and going to occur more often) for locums but every employee pharmacist and locum should be concerned about how little consideration has been given to what-if scenarios by those proposing to implement the changes.
The view of RPSGB is that SOPs should cover what to do and we already have those in place. That is all very good in theory but SOPs have not yet been designed as to what happens if there are not enough staff to run the pharmacy safely. This has traditionally been left to the owner/manager to sort out. Under the RP regs, if you sign on to be the RP for the day then you are saying that you feel that the pharmacy can operate safely. If an incident subsequently occurs, you are solely responsible as you assumed the responsibility.
There is going to be 2 hours absence in every 24 hour period allowed and during that time the sale of GSL medicines will be allowed to continue. This sounds like a good thing, particularly for the general public. There is a catch though, during this 2 hours the pharmacist has to be contactable and able to return to the pharmacy. So not a REST BREAK then. How confused are the public going to be now when GSL medicines can be sold when the pharmacist is absent but not when they are having their lunch?!
The only good proposal that I took away from the presentation at BPC was that we will no longer need to have our certificate on show.
I fear far too many pharmacists are ignorant of what the changes will mean for THEM and that both saddens and scares me. I have already crossed out the first week of October 2009 in my diary as I do not intend to be locuming in a pharmacy on the day these changes are introduced if they go ahead in the manner proposed.
Marry in haste, repent at leisure
It does not surprise me in the least to discover that the "Responsible Pharmacist" regulations are to be rushed through Parliament by the end of this month, but it saddens me that the Society are apparently impotent to do anything but tow the Government line. Can we trust the Government, given its track record, when it asserts that exceptions to the "One Pharmacy, One Responsible Pharmacist" rule will only be permitted in a national emergency, and that "the regulations could later be reviewed in the light of experience"? Is the position of the Company Chemists' Association not that they envisage that an employee pharmacist working in one branch of a multiple could be asked to "sign on" as the Responsible Pharmacist for another branch in the event that a locum has refused to "sign on" as such in that latter branch due to professional reservations?