More than 90% of pharmacists oppose ‘facilitated self-selection’ of P medicines

pile of many different pills to represent polypharmacy
amenic181 / iStock / Getty Images Plus / via Getty Images

Almost 80% of pharmacists are very concerned about the risks to patient safety posed by the facilitated self-selection of Pharmacy (P) medicines, a move that is being supported by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, according to a new survey. 

The survey of nearly 600 respondents by the Pharmacists Defence Association (PDA) found that 94% of respondents said they opposed facilitated self-selection, which allows members of the public to select certain high risk medicines from an open display without any involvement from a registered pharmacist.

In July 2025, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) changed its stance on facilitated self-selection and announced that it was ‘supportive of the adoption of models that enable the facilitated self-selection of P medicines, where a community pharmacy chooses to implement such models’.

Related Article: Pharmacists concerned they will see ‘very little’ of contract funding boost

However, 43% of responses to the PDA survey were from members of the RPS, and 82% of those members said they did not support allowing P medicines to be available for self-selection.

The survey also found that:

  • 81% of pharmacists believed that the proposed supervision changes could compromise safe supply;
  • Almost all of the pharmacists surveyed (98%) said they were concerned about inappropriate medicine selection;
  • 92% were worried about reduced pharmacist oversight;
  • and 80% reported concerns about the risk of theft or misuse.

Respondents called for stronger safeguards around the use of P medicines, including mandatory training for staff, clear escalation protocols, pharmacist oversight, restrictions to low-risk medicines and regular audits.

P medicines are on open display in some pharmacies, meaning they are not discussed with a pharmacist until the patient attempts to purchase it at the counter.

The PDA warns that this ‘undermines clinical safeguards’, and said it ‘urges’ the RPS to reconsider its position and engage in ‘engage in transparent, profession-wide consultation built on robust evidence’.

Related Article: Expansion of Pharmacy First a ‘key step’ in delivering preventative care

In response, the RPS said: ‘This was previously considered extensively by our elected Board members, many of whom are community pharmacists, and they felt it was important to support the profession working within a lawful and regulatory acceptable position through RPS guidance. The guidance makes clear robust risk assessments and training must be in place.’

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) said in June 2024 that the self-selection of P medicines would not be compatible with its regulatory standards without key safeguards in place, including compliance with the legal requirement for pharmacist supervision and assurance that patient and public safety is secured.

A spokesperson for the GPhC said: ‘Facilitated self-selection of P-medicines must operate in an environment that is compliant with all regulatory standards and one which assures public and patient safety.

Related Article: Beyond the scales: reframing eating disorder recognition in primary care

‘We will continue to check for associated compliance as part of our usual regulatory processes, including during inspections of pharmacy premises.’

An FAQ on self-selection and open display on Pharmacy medicines is available on the GPhC website.

Want news like this straight to your inbox?
Register for full access to the site and our bulletins
Have your say

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please add your comment in the box below. You can include links, but HTML is not permitted. Please note that comments are not moderated before publication and the views expressed are those of the user and do not reflect the views of The Pharmacist. Remember that submission of comments is governed by our Terms and Conditions. You can also read our full guidelines on article comments here – but please be aware that you are legally liable for any libellous or offensive comments that you make. If you have a complaint about a comment or are concerned that a comment breaches our terms and conditions, please use the ‘Report this comment’ function to alert our web team.