Regulation of registered pharmacies: achievements and future challenges Scotland
event
19 February 2015
Hilton Edinburgh Airport Hotel, Edinburgh, EH28 8LL
Event report
Ken Muir, event chair and chief executive of the General Teaching Council Scotland welcomed
delegates to the event, highlighting the spirit of openness, dialogue and reflection that would
characterise the evening.
See the speakers’ presentations on our website
Presentations
The view from the GPhC
Lynsey Cleland, director for Scotland put the event into context and presented the view of the
GPhC.
Mark Voce, head of inspection gave a summary of the new approach to inspections. He spoke about
progress in implementing the inspection model so far: what we have learned about the new
inspections, the standards for registered pharmacies and feedback we have received. He explained
how we are developing and refining the approach in light of this feedback and experience and
highlighted areas where we would welcome further views over the coming months.
The view from pharmacy
A panel of community pharmacy representatives offered their experiences of the standards and
inspections. Overall, these were positive, though they did reflect some concerns. The panel
members included:



Harry McQuillan
Karen Gordon
Alan Cameron
Harry McQuillan, superintendent pharmacist and chief executive, Community Pharmacy Scotland
Key points:





personal experience of preparing for the inspection was “like that of an expectant father”
the entire pharmacy team were involved in the preparation, staff were motivated, put in a
lot of work and felt confident they would be rated as ‘good’
the outcome of inspection was ‘satisfactory’: the entire team were unconvinced
as a result, the inspection report was challenged and further evidence provided. The second
outcome was still satisfactory, but with areas of good comment and no non-compliance, but
would every pharmacy owner have the confidence to feedback and challenge the inspection
report?
overall, the inspection process was positive
Karen Gordon, superintendent, Davidsons Chemists
Key points:





initial issues with awareness of the new standards were overcome by involving all staff in the
preparations, including getting staff to ‘inspect’ their own pharmacy
the first few inspections took up to six hours and the associated report lengthy but
subsequent inspections have become ‘slicker’. The question was raised whether inspections
in independent pharmacies, generally take longer
pharmacy staff need to be prepared to tell the inspector why the pharmacy is good, verbal
feedback at time of inspection is not enough, it needs to be backed up with historical written
evidence
what will satisfactory mean to the public? Do inspection report ratings need more detail so
the public can contextualise and don’t ‘write off’ the pharmacy?
concerns about excellence rating and how excellence can be maintained from one
inspection to the next – how will it look to the public if an ‘excellent’ grading is lost?
Alan Cameron, superintendent pharmacist, Carrick Knowe Pharmacy
Key points:



inspection “felt like an interview from the police, where you have done nothing wrong but
still feel a sense of guilt”
the GPhC and CPS websites were excellent for preparation
the inspector didn’t go through controlled drugs or standard operating procedures. Instead,
the inspection was about the standards overall – this was a pleasant surprise


inspection was very fair, the process was good and the team were given the chance to go
back and raise important points which had been forgotten, however the result was still
satisfactory
‘satisfactory’ is not a good adjective- it feels an unfair rating for a very busy pharmacy which
helps a lot of people within the local community and has very detailed practices in place
Questions and answers
The speaker panel was joined by Mark Voce and Duncan Rudkin, GPhC chief executive to take
questions from the floor. Issues raised and points made included:



what does good evidence look like?
how many excellent ratings have there been and what does this look like?
perception that pharmacy owners who aren’t pharmacists would find the satisfactory rating
to be bad for their business
Roundtable discussions
Delegates were invited to discuss a range of questions in breakout groups, sharing conclusions at
the close of the event. Discussion was wide and varied, with delegates offering ideas, feedback and
reflections from a range of perspectives. This document does not attempt to reproduce all of the
conclusions and questions, but they have all been captured and will be used by the GPhC to inform
next steps.
Participants felt that:









‘satisfactory’ is not a negative rating and should not be seen as such although satisfactory is
currently perceived negatively. This point generated the most comment on the night
GPhC support is needed in order to achieve the ‘good’ rating: how will GPhC provide this
support?
the ratings have an impact on staff morale
pharmacy teams do not know much at the moment and there is a need for increased
awareness, thus improving staff morale and involvement
if pharmacies rated as ‘poor’ pass all the action plans, do they stay poor or move to
satisfactory and when will be the next opportunity to change the rating? How will this affect
public perceptions?
the public perceptions of ‘good‘ should be measured before inspection reports are published
opportunities should be given to challenge outcomes of inspections
they were concerned about public perception of ‘satisfactory’
practical examples of good help counteract fear factor - not looking for anything more
complicated than when you feel you have done a good job
Closing reflections and next steps
Duncan Rudkin, chief executive, General Pharmaceutical Council




events like these, show the passion pharmacists have for their profession and underline the
importance of the GPhC getting our approach right
in order for inspections to reflect the profession as a whole, our challenge is to do our work,
report it truthfully and show passion, enthusiasm and integrity.
judgements are important. We won’t say every pharmacy is ‘good’ if they are not but we will
look at the ratings again and come back to you with an alternative to the ‘satisfactory’ rating
as it seems to be perceived as unsatisfactory.
we will publish a report setting out our next steps and proposals for further engagement on
ratings and publication of inspection reports and will consult fully before the final model
goes live.