Members sign in

Forgotten your password?

Consultation Responses


APTUK response to theGPhC Consultation on Guidance to Ensure a Safe and Effective Pharmacy Team - closing date was 11th October 2017

 APTUK response to the GPhC Revalidation Consultation - July 2017

The consultation paper andthe response to the GPhC Consultation on religion, personal values and beliefs- closing date was 7th March 2017

The consultation paper and the response to the discussion paper on supervising pharmacist independent prescribers in training – closing date was 1st February 2017

Pharmacy Assistant Apprenticeship Trailblazer Consultation APTUK response- 21st January 2017

  Response to the Future of Pharmacy Regulation in Northern Ireland Consultation

Hub and Spoke Consultation Response

Community Pharmacy 2016-2017 and beyond

Full consultation response                       2nd consultation response

APTUK is responding to the community pharmacy future proposals cognisant of the professional leadership role and the safeguarding of the current and future role of the pharmacy technicians. The response also considers the potential impact of funding cuts on the skill mix of the pharmacy team going forwards and the effects this may have on pharmacy services for patients and the public.

APTUK supports 'the vision for community pharmacy to be integrated with the wider health and social care system' and their understanding for the need for efficiencies across all of the NHS and believes that effective skill mix review and the utilisation of pharmacy technicians, as regulated, registered, accountable and responsible professionals, can contribute to supporting the pharmacy team in delivering quality pharmacy services.

APTUK considers that pharmacy technicians are integral to the Government's objective of a more clinically focused, modern and effect pharmacy sector. It believes that delegation of appropriate tasks to pharmacy technicians is key to advancing pharmacy. However, APTUK are also concerned about the impact of 6% funding cuts on pharmacies, the pharmacy workforce and services to patients and the public at a time when there is significant growth in workload and changing healthcare needs of the population.

In response to the proposals, Tess Fenn, APTUK President says 'APTUK seeks assurance that the role of the pharmacy technician is seen as pivotal to future pharmaceutical provision. Given this, APTUK believes that pharmacy technicians have a key role, within the community pharmacy team, in the delivery of high quality care and operationally managing the timely appropriate use and supply of medicines to patients and the public. We are pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this consultation on behalf of the pharmacy technician profession and recognise this opportunity for change and better patient outcomes'.

GPhC Consultations

Registration Fees

APTUK have responded to the GPhC Consultation on Registration Fees which closed on 8 May 2012.   Our response reflected that APTUK are happy with a further reduction in pharmacy technician registration fees. However, we have urged the GPhC to undertake further work to understand how the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the Health Professions Council can provide effective registration and regulation for £70 per year per registrant. We offered the view that the GPhC should be looking at bringing pharmacy technician registration fees into line with other similarly banded health professions.

 APTUK has stated that, for the premises fees, we support the general principle that the level of the fees set should reflect the actual cost of registration/regulation.

 APTUK did not comment on the registration fees for pharmacists

Modernising Pharmacy Regulation

On behalf of its members APTUK board of National Officers has responded to the Modernising Pharmacy Regulation consultation for GPhC. Although in principle we felt the new standards are clear and comprehensive we felt further guidance was required on two issues.

1.      In the introduction it is noted that medicines are sometimes supplied from settings which are not regulated by GPhC, for example GP dispensing practices and ward areas in hospitals. In our response we noted that registered pharmacy professionals often work in these settings and must maintain the same standards of practice in the interest of patient safety.

2.      We felt that there is a need for guidance on the roles of Pharmacy Technicians as regulated professionals as opposed to non-registered support staff. We feel there should be a definition of the role of the pharmacy technician including clarification of tasks that should only be performed by a regulated Pharmacy Technician.

We also suggested that when referring to appropriate qualifications the guidance should specify approved or accredited qualifications.