Supervision hits the headlines once again, as PDA survey causes controversy

The topic of pharmacy technician supervision is continuing to make waves across the pharmacy sector after the Pharmacists’ Defence Association published the results of a survey it conducted into pharmacy technicians’ views.

The survey suggests that pharmacy technicians may not wish to take on greater responsibility for overseeing key tasks in pharmacies, such as supervising the sale of medicines, if all conditions – including pay, training, career prospects and working conditions – remained the same.

Key findings from the survey, which had 143 responses from pharmacy technicians working in England, Scotland and Wales, include:

• 87 per cent of pharmacy technicians would not wish to supervise other pharmacy staff in the absence of a pharmacist
• 86 per cent said they wouldn’t supervise POM sales without a pharmacist present, and 80 per cent wouldn’t supervise P or GSL sales
• Of those who were not prepared to supervise the supply of POM medicines, 30 per cent said they wouldn’t do so in any circumstances, 42 per cent said they would do so only with a pharmacist present, and 15 per cent said they would do so if they qualified as a pharmacist themselves.

Factors that technicians said could make them more open to greater responsibility included higher salaries, training opportunities and the removal of the risk of criminal prosecution should anything go wrong.

The wider picture

However, a recent canvass by the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK (APTUK) at its annual conference showed significantly differing results. When posed with the question ‘are you in favour of updating legislation to enable some level of pharmacy technician supervision’, delegates responded with an almost unanimous yes. However, pharmacy technicians felt that the responsible or superintendent pharmacist should sign off individual pharmacy technicians to take on such responsibilities, and that in order to continue to work within their competency, additional training would be required. 

In response to the PDA survey, APTUK president Tess Fenn said: “At this stage we are unaware of the evidence behind the survey and the reported data does not align with recent discussions that APTUK has had with its members. APTUK was not engaged or asked to participate in the survey and was not informed this had taken place. Our view remains constant, as is stated in all of our position statements on our website, particularly in relation to tasks that we believe could be delegated safely to competent, regulated pharmacy professionals within the right safe systems and with the right governance in place.”

‘A reduction in standards’

PDA director Paul Day said that while the union does not count pharmacy technicians among its members, ”we still don’t want to see those colleagues placed in inappropriate situations”.

“We can see the problems in other public services where junior colleagues without the necessary skills or competence have been asked to fulfil professional roles as a cost-cutting exercise. It is bad for them and sees a reduction in standards,” Mr Day said. Any harm to patients as a result of changes to supervision would be “simply unacceptable,” he added.

Further recommendations

The PDA is also drip-feeding information from a report it has compiled over the last three years about the role of pharmacy technicians. The report, due to be released in full later in 2018, makes recommendations on how the roles and skill mix of community pharmacists and pharmacy technicians could be developed for the future. 

TM will bring you more as this story unfolds.