In Opinion

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

There are elements of the new GPhC inspection regime that seem sensible enough. A focus on outcomes as a means of underpinning patient safety, not prescriptive rules, for instance. Or shifting the onus onto pharmacists themselves to decide how to deliver safe and effective practice. So far, so 'right touch'.

Nevertheless, despite the positive spin being put on things by the regulator, pharmacists are becoming increasingly concerned over several key aspects of the process. And I don't mean unannounced visits. They were always going to be about as popular as a Gary Barlow tax return.

Two things that pharmacists feel genuinely aggrieved about €“ with every justification €“ are the length of time given to respond to an inspection report (two days is manifestly not long enough) and what seems to be a rather vague, poorly defined and arbitrary ratings system.

For most of those already inspected to be labelled only 'satisfactory' is, in their eyes, galling enough. But their frustration is made worse because the GPhC has been less than explicit regarding what 'good' or 'excellent' practice actually looks like and how pharmacies can reach that level.

Now, the GPhC would no doubt admit that the new model is, to an extent, work in progress that needs refining. However it is unfair and potentially even disadvantageous that a pharmacy given a 'satisfactory' rating is stuck with it until the next inspection visit, probably in around three years' time, when so much of the detail is still being worked out.