There are other priorities to be tackled before any proposed changes to supervision, suggests Noel Wicks
Supervision seems to be the topic on everyone’s lips at the moment. The debate was re-ignited recently by the letter from a group of RPS members to the President-elect stating that supporting the removal of the need for a pharmacist in a pharmacy would be a betrayal of its members.
This thorny issue has been sat with the Department of Health’s rebalancing board for the last four years with many views expressed both for and against changes to supervision rules.
The Department set itself the task of looking at supervision because it believes that current legislation restricts the full use of the skill of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, and puts unnecessary obstacles in the way of new models of service delivery.
Are they right? Do we actually need more flexibility in service provision?