Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.

Join

Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

Pharmacy inspections

GPhC rates more than 600 pharmacies as 'poor'

The pharmacy regulator rated 667 pharmacies as ‘poor’ between November 2013 and June 2018, according to a freedom-of-information request from the Pharmacists’ Defence Association.

Duncan Rudkin, chief executive of the GPhC

Source: General Pharmaceutical Council

Duncan Rudkin, chief executive of the GPhC, pointed out that ratings of pharmacies cannot be compared with fitness to practise investigations because they have different legal frameworks

More than 600 pharmacy inspections by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) resulted in a ‘poor’ rating over the past five years, a freedom-of-information (FOI) request has revealed.

Responding to a request from the Pharmacists’ Defence Association (PDA), the pharmacy regulator said it had rated 667 pharmacies as ‘poor’ between November 2013 and June 2018, and that 2,576 inspections resulted in an action plan being required to improve the pharmacy’s performance. Some of these may have been repeat inspections. 

‘Poor’ pharmacies are asked to submit an improvement action plan within 10 working days, and ‘satisfactory’ pharmacies must do this within 20 days.

The PDA, which supports the needs of individual pharmacists and pharmacy students, said a previous FOI response from the GPhC, provided in November 2017, revealed that the regulator had not issued any sanctions against a pharmacy owner or superintendent for a breach of its pharmacy premises safety standards.

The PDA said the GPhC’s treatment of pharmacy owners was “in stark contrast with their treatment of individual registrants” and that a previous FOI request had revealed that since it was established, the GPhC had issued 4,111 sanctions to individual registrants.

Alima Batchelor, head of policy at the PDA, questioned whether the problems the GPhC encountered could “always be the fault of individuals working on the front line, and never the fault of the organisation, or because of the policy set by the employer?”.

Batchelor added that the PDA would like to see the GPhC “take a stronger, more modern ‘systems’ approach to patient safety, as used in other industries, to protect the public.

“That includes significantly strengthening its approach to regulating registered pharmacies — and whilst we’re generally supportive of the proposals in its current consultation, they do not go nearly far enough,” she said.

Responding to the report, Duncan Rudkin, chief executive of the GPhC, said ratings of pharmacies should not be compared with fitness to practise investigations.

“It’s important to note that there are different legal frameworks for the regulation of pharmacy professionals and pharmacies so that comparison doesn’t provide much insight,” he said.

Rudkin said legislation introduced in May 2018 had given the GPhC “strengthened powers” to regulate registered pharmacies, including new powers to publish inspection reports and a range of enforcement tools.

Rudkin added that the GPhC was consulting on its proposed approach to regulating registered pharmacies, including a new model of inspection that would enable it to be more “responsive to intelligence and to issues within pharmacy”.

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2018.20205267

Readers' comments (1)

  • https://www.pharmacyregulation.org/sites/default/files/determinations/bashir_umar_2050976_determination.pdf

    This FTP report, for example, highlighted that the pharmacist being sanctioned was experiencing, amongst other mitigating factors, "a lack of support from his employer" (bottom of page 15). We have seen this sort of statementin FTP hearings time and time again, often in relation to MUR targets (sorry, demands/expectations).

    What do GPhC, who also regulate pharmacy premises, do in relation to this? How often have GPhC performed such an investigation into an employer? If they do happen, are they available like they are for registrants' hearings?

    I, and many fellow registrants, look forward to a response...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Supplementary images

  • Duncan Rudkin, chief executive of the GPhC

Jobs you might like

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.