Picture Partners / Alamy Stock Photo
The Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA) has warned that proposed standards for the regulation of responsible pharmacists (RPs) and superintendent pharmacists (SPs) “risk undermining patient safety”.
In a statement published on 20 April 2026, the PDA said that the proposed standards “could undermine patient safety by blurring statutory roles, weakening accountability and enabling unsafe models of practice unless they are significantly revised”.
The PDA also called for the standards to “explicitly prohibit the use of authorisation to facilitate remote supervision”, which was supported by 95% of PDA members, the statement said.
The standards were proposed in 2025, following legislative changes to pharmacy supervision, due to come into effect in December 2026, which will enable pharmacists to authorise registered pharmacy technicians to carry out, or to supervise others carrying out, the preparation, assembly, dispensing, sale and supply of medicines.
If the pharmacist is absent or unable to intervene in the transaction, the legislation will also allow the pharmacist to “authorise any member of the pharmacy staff to make the final supply of that medicine to or for a patient” if the pharmacist has already “dispensed or supervised a checked prescription which is then ready for sale or supply”, they said.
The proposed standards retain the requirement for RPs to only be responsible for one pharmacy at a time and to limit absences to up to two hours per day.
In its consultation response concerning the proposed standards, published in March 2026, the PDA welcomed the proposed limitations for RPs, adding that every pharmacy should have two pharmacists present during business hours to deliver both services and dispensing.
However in its response to the proposals, published in March 2026, the Company Chemists’ Association (CCA), which represents large pharmacy employers, said: “The safe and effective running of a pharmacy should not be dependent on the physical presence of an RP, given developments in technology, remote access to clinical systems and established governance arrangements within pharmacy businesses.
“Where appropriate procedures, safeguards and escalation mechanisms are in place, the RP can continue to exercise effective professional oversight without being physically present on the premises.”
The proposed standards say SPs “must make use of technology”, while RPs are expected to “embrace” technology.
The CCA said the wording for SPs “appears more prescriptive” than for RPs, “creating an apparent disconnect in accountability”.
In its own consultation response, Community Pharmacy England (CPE) suggested: “The draft standards for superintendent pharmacists should acknowledge that not all technology will enhance patient safety, and the draft standards should recognise that non-technological or less technological processes may be just as safe and effective as technological ones.”
The PDA’s consultation response added: “The standards must make clear that the responsibility for the suitability of software and its verification (and any consequential errors resulting from the use of deficient technology) lies with the SP.”
The trade union also said that it has received concerns from members around patient medication record (PMR) software “which attempt to bypass the clinical check by a pharmacist on prescriptions”.
“It should be made plain that the introduction of new technologies or processes (such as new functionality within a PMR) can only be implemented following the agreement of the SP,” the PDA said.
On 20 April 2026, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) published a position statement, which confirms that pharmacy professionals remain “personally accountable for their professional practice, even when AI is being used”.
Regarding authorisation, the proposed standards for SPs and RPs say that SPs must set, maintain and communicate “robust standards operating procedures, policies and procedures — including how authorisations are used and recorded in each pharmacy”.
“Authorisations must be recorded in writing on the day of authorisation, signed by both parties and submitted to the RP by the end of the day, who must then submit them to the SP,” the proposals continue.
According to the proposals, the authorisation “must state that the authorised task can only be done at or from the registered pharmacy named in the authorisation” and can be “changed or withdrawn by the pharmacist who gives the authorisation” or by an RP if patient safety is at risk.
“If a pharmacy has a separate RP and a SP, only the RP or an authorising pharmacist can authorise. This will provide clear lines of accountability and responsibility,” the proposed standards add.
However, CPE’s consultation response said: “It is not easy to see what the rationale is for this … even if the SP is not at the premises, why can the superintendent not give authority to a pharmacy technician, for example if the RP is attending to a patient and cannot be interrupted?”
The CCA’s consultation response noted: “We are concerned about the potential for conflicting professional authority between the authorising pharmacist, an RP, and frameworks set by SPs … It is appropriate that an RP should intervene and override an authorisation given by another pharmacist where patient safety is at risk. However, there is a risk that the current proposed wording would enable RPs to override authorisations based solely on personal preference.”
“We also wish to see the flexibility to implement ‘role-based’ authorisations. This means authorisation is attached to a defined role and level of competence, rather than being issued on a daily, shift by shift, or pharmacist specific basis,” it added.
The GPhC’s proposed standards were open for consultation from 17 December 2025 to 25 March 2026.
