In Views

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

Pharmacists did not find themselves working collaboratively with the GPhC who too often acted more like a parliamentary militia than a community policing service, says Terry Maguire…

I was impressed with the General Pharmaceutical Council’s honesty when it accepted and recognised that, perhaps, it was at times a tad heavy-handed. It was very important to hear.

In their new strategy, they commit to: “empowering pharmacy professionals, protecting the public through collaboration, and building a skilled, agile and inclusive organisation to carry out its regulatory responsibilities”.

Who can disagree with these noble aims and a commitment to make it feel like that for those pharmacists on the receiving end?

The pharmacy practice landscape is ever-changing and the key challenges for now are; independent prescribing, digital transformation and expanded clinical roles and the role of a regulator, as GPhC states, is “to provide a clear and robust framework that maintains public confidence while enabling innovation”.

An honest admission that improvement is needed and a commitment to address perceptions that the regulator has been overbearing and adversarial is an important first step.

Recognition that the old approach only served to alienate the profession is long overdue as pharmacists did not find themselves working collaboratively with a body that too often acted more like a parliamentary militia than a community policing service. 

The Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (PSNI), which ironically shares its name with our community policing service, is also awake to these views and is, I believe, changing to a more collaboration with registrants. This is great to hear but needs to be actioned and communicated to the profession and the public if it is to become reality.

Funding PSNI as a modern regulator is particularly challenging due to the small number of registrants – about 3,000. The role of regulators generally has become more complex and smaller bodies must deal with higher fixed costs.

For this reason, our annual fee is going up by £79 in August after a consultation, the results of which were published in April. However, the timeframe to get the necessary legislative changes was too short, so the fee hike will now be June 2026.

Not surprisingly, there was a strong and highly negative response to the proposed fees hike, with nearly 700 respondents saying no. But what is more encouraging was the numbers who did respond (750) and showed at least an interest by articulating their views – views that have been suppressed but needed to be heard.

And to be fair, PSNI seems at last to be listening by making a commitment to change; ensuring improved organisational performance, reviewing transparency on how it spends our fees and exploring options for a flexible fee structure.

In responding to this consultation, the profession certainly didn’t pull its punches. Many pointed out that PSNI, unlike the GPhC, had an overarching professional leadership role but this was poorly resourced through the NI Pharmacy Forum.

Conversely, some argued that the 11 per cent of the fee that went to fund the Forum restricted them to spending this amount on Royal Pharmaceutical Society membership.

Surprisingly, some saw it as unfair that their fee had to support fitness-to-practice cases and the public protection function. Perhaps this is why, later in the report, PSNI said some responses suggested a lack of understanding about the statutory functions of the Society.

Indeed, this hybrid role needs clarification by debate and perhaps legal advice. The PSNI, wrongly in my opinion, created the N.I. Pharmacy Forum to abdicate responsibility for its professional leadership responsibilities as it attempted to become GPhC.

For those of us who opposed Northern Ireland being subsumed into GPhC back in 2010, this was never the plan. Many questioned the merit of two UK pharmacy regulators which suggests a tragic failure of PSNI to act as a hybrid body.

Yet others did identify the benefits of a local regulator giving a more flexible approach and having a stronger influence with the Department of Health.

There has, however, been little tangible evidence of this local influence over the last 15 years, so it will be important to see how this manifests as the promised change embeds.

Where I accept many pharmacists pay their own fees out of income – and pharmacist incomes vary greatly – it must be remembered that most employed pharmacists have fees paid by their employer.

As it’s not directly their own money, perhaps many don’t feel the need to make demands on PSNI to produce better outcomes. If we each were responsible for our own fees, maybe the response to the consultation would have been 2,750 rather than 750.

In that case, PSNI would never be able to remain aloof and unchallenged as it has for too long.

Like the GPhC strategy, the PSNI fees consultation report is refreshingly honest and, for me, a recognition that regulation must change with more empathy for the profession.

The PSNI is more aware of its responsibilities to the pharmacists who fund it and who, day in, day out, do such an excellent job in every community across Northern Ireland.

Terry Maguire is a leading pharmacist in Northern Ireland.