Godong / Alamy Stock Photo
More than a third (38%) of pharmacy organisations believe current draft standards would have a positive effect on chief pharmacists, according to General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) council papers.
The papers, published on 16 July 2024 ahead of a council meeting on 18 July 2024, reported that 27% of organisations said there would be both a positive and negative impact on chief pharmacists, while 8% said the impact would be negative.
Just over half (51%) of individual respondents to the consultation on the proposals felt they would have a positive impact.
In total, there were 158 responses to the consultation: 132 from individuals and 26 from organisations.
Draft standards on the role of chief pharmacists were published in January 2024, after legislation came into force in December 2022 that removed the threat of criminal penalties for accidental or unintentional preparation and dispensing errors by pharmacy staff working in hospitals and similar settings.
However, to benefit from the defences, the legislation stipulated that hospitals and similar bodies must have a chief pharmacist or equivalent in post, who must meet the GPhC’s standards.
The proposed standards include “provide strategic and professional leadership” and “develop a workforce with the right skills, knowledge, and experience”.
According to some respondents, the standards proposed by the GPhC put “significant responsibility and pressure on one individual to achieve what could potentially be major changes”, the papers reported.
“It was argued that chief pharmacists needed to be given the resources and support to meet the standards if they were to avoid being impacted negatively,” they added.
Respondents from pharmacy organisations felt that the possibility of positive impact from the proposed standards was highest for patients and the public (54%); followed by pharmacy staff, and pharmacist and pharmacy technician students and trainees (both at 42%); chief pharmacists (38%); and pharmacy owners and employers, and other healthcare professionals (both at 35%).
Meanwhile, 50% of pharmacy organisation respondents felt that the standards would provide a governance framework that would support staff to report preparation and dispensing errors, while more than a quarter (27%) said they would not.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s (RPS) response to the draft standards, published in April 2024, called for the chief pharmacist role to be mandatory.
Claire Anderson, president of the RPS, urged the GPhC “to work with other regulators, the government and stakeholders on how this can be implemented to maintain confidence in a consistent approach to regulatory standards”.
However, the council papers said this was outside of the GPhC’s remit.
Nathan Burley, president of the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists, said: “We believe the standards proposed are in all likelihood a formalisation of the qualities and characteristics exhibited by the vast majority of chief pharmacists already in position.
“Where we have concern is the cumulative weight of responsibility being placed on one individual and the resulting impact on health and wellbeing in an ever-pressurising system. Chief pharmacists also need support in their role, and it would be regrettable if the standards were weaponised or used as a tool for retribution for example after difficult decisions being made.”
He added that the GPhC “is exploring further how to specify a minimum skill and experience requirement which presumably would result in an interplay with employment processes”.
“A misalignment of any proposed differing skills/experience/personal qualities with existing Agenda for Change job profiles for chief pharmacists would need to be explored.”
The GPhC’s council papers said that some suggested additions or amendments to the standards needed “further consideration” and would be addressed either through further engagement with relevant stakeholders and/or research.
The standards are expected to be back with the council in September 2024 for discussion and sign-off.
