The Government is consulting on the role of superintendent and responsible pharmacists, says David Gallier-Harris, a member of the DHSC’s rebalancing board, writing in a personal capacity

The superintendent pharmacist/responsible pharmacist consultation from the rebalancing board reviews the current legislation and proposes moving much from primary legislation to professional regulatory control.

One result of these proposals is that failure to comply with a new mixture of GPhC standards, rules and regulatory guidance would become fitness to practise matters, rather than criminal offences, as is currently the case.

The proposed changes define where accountability lies. Broadly speaking, the proposals set out that overall system governance lies with the superintendent pharmacist and that governance for how those systems are implemented on a day-to-day basis lies with the responsible pharmacist.

Much of what is proposed is common sense – for example, requiring superintendents to include GSL supply and clinical services as part of their general accountability duty or removing the requirement for responsible pharmacists to establish standard operating procedures. There are, however, contentious elements within some of what is proposed.

The proposals remove many detailed pieces of legislation (e.g. reference to RP presence for supervision of sales/supply of medicines). On the face of it, this could be viewed as easing the requirements for supervision.

The proposals do remove a law which would prevent pharmacy supervision change, but it is a sideways move in that supervision laws are governed by separate primary legislation – not the responsible pharmacist regulations. The legislation governing pharmacy supervision remains unaffected by these proposals.

Pinch point

Another pinch point is the proposal for the regulator to allow a pharmacist to be the RP for more than one pharmacy. Is this the start of remote supervision?

Ministers already have the power to grant an exception from the current regulations for a responsible pharmacist at more than one pharmacy at a time. An example of where this could happen is when a pharmacy is served by a dispensing robot in a separate building. These proposals move the existing power to do this to the regulator.

In order to make any such exemption rule change, the regulator would need to consult with ministers and any resultant change would also need Privy Council approval and scrutiny in Parliament.

Have your say

These proposals clear up some untidy legislation, redefine roles for pharmacy professionals along common sense lines and pass significant new powers to the regulator. It is now over to you to have your say on the proposals and influence the discussion. These are the most significant set of proposals for how we practise as pharmacists in my 19 years on the register. We tend to be apathetic about elections and consultations. Please make this the exception.

• David Gallier-Harris is a full-time community pharmacist.