Group items tagged

Pharmacist supervision has been the subject of debate for as long as I can remember. Strikingly, no one is sure what supervision requires. The Human Medicines Regulations 2012 say it is a criminal offence to sell or supply Pharmacy medicines or Prescription Only Medicines unless a pharmacist makes the sale or supply or, if the transaction is carried out by a non-pharmacist, that person acts under the supervision of a pharmacist. Over the years, some people have argued that supervision requires a clinical check. Others say it requires an accuracy assessment. Yet others have asserted that it requires a final check before a medicine leaves the pharmacy. Things are made more uncertain by the NHS terms of service which require prescription medicines to be supplied under the direct supervision of a pharmacist. No one knows what the word "direct" adds. The wording of the Human Medicines Regulations is not identical to the wording of earlier legislation. In particular, on the only occasions when the courts have been called upon to interpret the requirement for supervision, the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 was in force. In cases decided in 1943 and 1953, the courts decided that a pharmacist who was upstairs when a supply was made could not have been supervising; and that a sale was supervised by pharmacist standing at the cash desk because the pharmacist could intervene if a sale would not be appropriate.

The Pharmacists' Defence Association (PDA) has raised concern over the Health Education England (HEE)'s decision on cutting funding to independent prescribing training. The HEE has reportedly decided that no funding will be available to back-fill trainees undertaking the pharmacist independent prescribing (PIP) qualification, or for the supervision of trainees by DPPs and DMPs. The PDA noted that, whilst all successful trainee pharmacists will be entering the GPhC register as independent prescribers from 2026, the existing pharmacist workforce is reliant on opportunities to undertake prescriber training through release from their employment, and the ability to secure a Designated Medical Practitioner (DMP) or Designated Prescribing Practitioner (DPP) to support the 90 days of supervised practice required. The association said it has already heard examples of potential DMPs or DPPs requesting a significant fee from trainees before they will provide supervision, adding that meeting that request is not an option for many. "This latest decision threatens to undermine the availability of the large numbers of pharmacists seeing supervisors as more IP training becomes available," it said in a statement.

In a surprising move that has divided the pharmacy profession, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has sanctioned hundreds of pharmacies to allow patients to self-select certain Pharmacy (P) medicines, a decision met with strong opposition from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) as well as from the Pharmacy Defense Association (PDA). In a statement, RPS shared that at a board meeting held on 19th June, they expressed "disappointment" over what they described as a lack of prior consultation and comprehensive communication from the GPhC regarding the implications of this policy shift. They argue that allowing patients to self-select certain P medicines could potentially jeopardize established professional guidelines and compromise the role of pharmacists in ensuring safe medication use. "Enabled by the General Pharmaceutical Council, we understand that hundreds of pharmacies, from large multiples to small independents, have been approved by the regulator to enable patients to self-select certain P medicines," the statement said.