GPhC draft standards ‘not aligned’ with current pharmacy practice, says CCA

Proposed new rules and standards for responsible and superintendent pharmacists are ‘not aligned’ with how pharmacy services are currently delivered, a leading trade association has warned.

The Company Chemists’ Association (CCA) said that the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC’s) draft proposals were particularly not aligned with businesses operating multiple pharmacy premises.

The CCA  said ‘further refinement’ was needed of the GPhC’s  draft standards for responsible pharmacists and superintendent pharmacists.

The trade association added: ‘The proposed rules and standards are not aligned with how pharmacy services are currently delivered, particularly across businesses operating multiple pharmacy premises.’

Related Article: Payment percentage for statutory branded medicines scheme drops to 16.5%

It called for a clearer separation between the strategic governance role of superintendent pharmacists and the operational accountability of responsible pharmacists, while avoiding ‘unnecessary bureaucracy’.

Responsible pharmacists oversee the day-to-day running of the pharmacy, including the safe and effective operation of the business, while superintendent pharmacists are responsible for professional and clinical management of a pharmacy.

The CCA said that superintendent pharmacists should remain responsible for setting governance frameworks, producing standard operating procedures, and advising responsible pharmacists, who in turn should ensure the quality of pharmacy services.

The GPhC consultation – which launched in December 2025 and closed last month – proposed a number of draft rules and standards for superintendent and responsible pharmacists.

The consultation aimed to clarify the role and accountability of different pharmacy professionals, and support better use of pharmacy teams’ skills so pharmacists can deliver more clinical services in the community.

The CCA strongly opposed introducing additional requirements for pharmacists to become responsible or superintendent pharmacists because it said this would create an ‘artificial shortage’ of pharmacists, which may then ‘undermine’ service delivery and patient access.

Related Article: Research review: a look at the latest clinical papers

In light of upcoming changes to supervision and authorisation, the GPhC said it would also produce an annex to the draft standards, setting out what is expected of staff members should their pharmacy decide to use authorisation models.

The GPhC announced that from January next year pharmacists will be able to authorise pharmacy technicians to hand out checked and bagged prescriptions when pharmacists are ‘absent or treated as absent'.

The CCA said the draft annex on authorisation was ‘unclear’, ‘overly complex’ and ‘does not appear to reflect the regulations accurately’.

It said there was a real risk that, if implemented as drafted, the annex would:

• Discourage adoption of authorisation models in practice;
• Create inconsistent interpretation and enforcement;
• Increase administrative burden for pharmacists without improving patient outcomes;
• Undermine confidence in the regulatory reform programme as a whole.

It would be ‘preferable’ if the GPhC endorsed the existing guidance on authorisation, developed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS), rather than producing its own, the CCA added.

Related Article: MenB vaccination programme to be rolled out in pharmacies

However, it backed the ‘overall intent’ of the consultation, acknowledging the need to clarify accountability in community pharmacy and how the new supervision legislation will be implemented.

The CCA said in its response: ‘Overall, while the intent of the standards is understood and supported, further refinement is needed to ensure they genuinely clarify the superintendent pharmacist role, reflect different organisational models, and avoid unintended administrative burden that does not demonstrably enhance patient or staff safety.’