The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) must avoid taking a harsh approach to minor flaws in its new premises inspections, independent pharmacy bodies have warned.
Independents broadly welcomed the GPhC's new inspection model, due to be introduced on Monday (November 4), but urged the regulator to focus on overall service standards rather than smaller issues such as the appearance of pharmacies.
The Independent Pharmacy Federation (IPF) stressed that aesthetics should not be an overriding feature of the inspections, and Numark said some of its members' branches had missed out on a ‘good' rating because of "very minor issues".
|
Innovation is very subjective and a regulator should be operating in an objective environment, said Ash Soni, contractor and NHS Lambeth clinical network lead |  More on GPhC inspections |
| The new standards will divide pharmacies into four categories – poor, satisfactory, good and excellent – based on compliance with five principles (see box, below). Pharmacies will have to demonstrate compliance with all standards to make the ‘good' grade. |
GPhC rates most pharmacies only ‘satisfactory' under pilot inspection systemNumark's director of pharmacy services Mimi Lau said it was no bad thing that pharmacies with major breaches could have their "knuckles rapped", but an overly harsh approach could demotivate pharmacies.
"This is a crucial time for pharmacy to demonstrate that we meet all of these parameters and that there is confidence in the profession," she said.
"Some test inspections carried out at Numark pharmacies have resulted in a ‘satisfactory' grade because of very minor issues and, if not managed properly, this could have a knock-on effect on staff motivation."
IPF chief executive Claire Ward echoed the words of caution. The rating system could boost public and professional confidence in pharmacy, she said, but must prioritise service standards above the look and feel of premises.
"The most important thing is the quality of service to patients. I can think of pharmacies that don't look that great, but the quality means people return," she said.
Ms Ward added that other healthcare professionals should face similar ratings of poor, good, satisfactory and excellent. "I think pharmacies should take advantage of this to set a high standard and say this is what the profession is doing, but we expect the same of GP surgeries and other healthcare providers," she told C+D.
Ash Soni, contractor and NHS Lambeth clinical network lead, agreed that the GPhC should avoid being too different from the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which inspects GP surgeries. If a surgery currently fails to comply with a standard, this is rated as having a major, moderate or minor impact on care, but the CQC is looking to revamp the system by 2015.
Mr Soni also expressed concerns over the criteria for meeting the ‘excellent' category, which will require pharmacies to demonstrate innovation. "If you're rated as ‘good', from a public perspective it means you could be doing better, but actually you're meeting all the requirements you're supposed to be meeting. It seems a bit odd," Mr Soni argued. "[Innovation] is very subjective, whereas a regulator should be operating in an objective environment."
The GPhC stressed that its approach to inspections had not yet been finalised, and pledged to take into account feedback from pharmacies. When looking at the environment of premises, the priority would be to ensure they were safe, clean, suitable for pharmacy services and properly maintained rather than focusing on aesthetics, it added.
| What is your opinion of the new GPhC system? Comment below or email us at haveyoursay@chemistanddruggist.co.uk You can also find C+D on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook |
