Responsible Pharmacist toolkit
I’ve being using the time i have due my incapacitation to read through the responsible pharmacist toolkit. (Mine arrived on Friday) To be honest, apart from the bureaucratic changes in terms of the need to sign in as the responsible pharmacist when required, I don’t see things changing too dramatically after 1st October. The only thing that does change is that pharmacy staff are able to sell GSL’s in the absence of the pharmacists (as long as the absence if for less that two hours) which is long over due.
The toolkit does answer allay many of the questions I had about responsible pharmacist regulations and has a very good section for locums. As someone who is usually only too happy to knock the RPSGB, I have to say that they have done a good job this time. I particularly like the personalised “responsible pharmacist sign” and “notice for pharmacy staff”
I think more fundamental changes will occur after the changes to supervision that are likely to happen in 2011.
Link to online responsible pharmacist toolkit below
Responsible pharmacist online toolkit
No related posts.
Category: Default, Permanent Pharmacy Jobs, Pharmacy News
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Hi Shaun
Your optimism on RP doesn’t seem to be shared by the many locums and other pharmacists who post on http://www.locumvoice.com
A very truncated version of the main concerns seems to be that if you have not worked somewhere before, you have to sign for a premises after being there a few minutes ie make a judgment call on staff, procedures etc etc. And if you decide not to open because of low staffing levels (or inadequately qualified staff), what will be the consequences ……….blacklists from multiples ? I’d be interested to hear how agencies are going to help with these issues, or not !
Best wishes
Valerie
Hi Valerie,
Many thanks for your comments to my post yesterday regarding the RP toolkit and it’s interesting to hear about the comments posted on locumvoice.
As i mentioned in my post i personally don’t see this as a particularly negative development on it’s own and in many ways I see it as a helpful exercise as it will clarify at least a couple of issues that have been affecting the profession for as long as I’ve been a pharmacist. The first of these is the nonsense that you can buy 16 paracetamol from a garage but not a registered pharmacy with trained staff, if the pharmacist isn’t present. The second issue to be clarified is that of a pharmacy with multiple pharmacists who does the buck stop with – the designated RP post 1st October.
However I think that the RP and supervision issues could also be a real opportunity for the professionals to take back control of the pharmacy profession. After all the RP is now obliged to close the pharmacy if he/she is unhappy about the safe running of the business. I agree the problem is that unofficial blacklists could exists for “troublesome” pharmacists. It may be that a report should be sent to the RPSGB (or it’s successor) by the RP if they feel they need to close the pharmacy? What do you think?
The biggest problem for locums is that they have very little bargaining power on their own and multiples can hold them over a barrel. This is one of the area’s where agencies can help. Pharmacies, especially multiples, will exhaust every avenue they have before coming to an agency to look for a locum to avoid our huge fees (I wish!!!) A good agency will negotiate the best rates they can for the locum to ensure that they come back to them next time they have gaps in their diary.
At PL-UK we are also looking at revising our terms and conditions with clients and locums to incorporate RP issues and also changing the way we take requests for locums cover from clients so we can gather all the information included in the “Information for locum” section of the RP toolkit for our locums.
Having said all that, what i would find really helpful is to understand what locums want from an agency in terms of RP and indeed more widely.
If you could encourage locums to post on this blog I will get a clear picture of what locums want from an agency like PL-UK and I will try my best to incorporate as much as i can into the service we provide. I would hope that most of this is already in place but i understand that the only business that doesn’t need to change and develop is a close one!
At the moment I am sat at home with my leg elevated recovering from a broken ankle so they’ll never get a better chance to air their views to the managing director of a locum agency – they have a captive audience!!
Best wishes,
Shaun
I’m afraid neither of you has yet grasped the real difficulty with the RP Regulations.
Dispensing errors can usually be traced to overworked inadequate staff, poor dispensary design, poor pack design, constant interruptions because of disorganisation, and so on.
These are outside the control of an individual locum pharmacist, but from October 1st. will be the sole responsibility of that locum. The owners and managers of the company will carry no responsibility for the poor state of their staffing, workplaces, or organisation.
This may seem unimportant, but only if you have a very shortsighted view of the real responsibilities of owners.
HI Bob,
I agree with your comments about the reasons dispensing errors occur and for employee pharmacists, there should be clearly defined avenues that they can go down to register complaints about staffing levels etc. However no such avenues exist, at present for self employed locum pharmacists.
My questions would be: What can the RPSGB (or it’s replacement) the PDA, locum agencies and others do to support locum pharmacists who find themselves in what they consider to be , an unsafe working environment?
Self-employed professions should be able to “whistle-blow” on contractors who operate unsafe pharmacies, the challenge is allowing them to do that without the worry that they will be black-listed by contractors.
As an agency PL-UK have a duty of care to make sure that we are putting locums into a safe working environments so we always ask the relevant questions. However, what we are told sometimes differs from the reality (Very rare thankfully).
Engaging locums on more traditional temporary contracts as used by most other professions and trades(Rather than self employed status) would give locums more protection and may be the way forward but would be a change to existing practice.
I think that as locum pharmacists we need to decide how we want to take this forward and would welcome an idea’s you might have.