Does a Pharmacist Need to Be on Site? Remote Supervision, Honestly
Do you need a pharmacist in a pharmacy? That’s really what the remote supervision debate is asking — and most of the answers you’ll hear are really answers to a different question: how do we keep things as they are? Here’s my honest take, including the day I realised the checking role was already gone.
The honest summary
- Dispensing practices already run without a pharmacist present — I saw it myself at a GP practice about ten years ago.
- Pharmacy’s unique advantage is access — a professional within ~10 minutes, no appointment. You can’t even get a haircut like that.
- Checking can be done by technicians, with governance structures in place and the support of AI.
- If we cling to supervision as our income stream, policy will move past us — don’t take it from me, look at the direction of policy.
- The future is clinical: pharmacists who can diagnose and manage. Should a pharmacist be on site? I think so — but not to watch boxes being checked.
This is the written companion to my video on the same question. If you’d rather hear it from me first, watch it, then read on for the detail.
The day I realised checking doesn’t need us
Around ten years ago I was doing some training at a GP practice with its own dispensary. Prescriptions were being dispensed and checked, day in, day out — and there was no pharmacist present. These were dispensing practices, operating legally, serving patients. That was the day it clicked for me: the particular service of checking prescriptions can be done without a pharmacist in the building. Not “might one day be possible” — already happening.
You can dislike that fact. You can argue about it. But you can’t make it un-true. And once you accept it, the supervision debate looks very different: the question isn’t whether the final check physically requires us. It demonstrably doesn’t. The question is what we offer beyond it.
What pharmacy has that nobody else does
Here’s the part I don’t want lost in the doom and gloom: pharmacy holds an advantage no other part of the health service can match. Within about ten minutes, most people in this country can stand in front of a healthcare professional without an appointment. Think about that. You can’t walk into a hairdresser without booking. You certainly can’t walk into a GP surgery. But you can walk into a pharmacy.
That access is pharmacy’s superpower — and it’s worth far more attached to a clinician than to a checker.
So yes — I think there is a huge advantage to having a pharmacist in a pharmacy. But the reason matters. The value of that ten-minute access depends entirely on what the person you reach can actually do for you.
The trap: defending the checking role
I understand why the profession holds on to supervision. It underpins the traditional model — it’s the income stream. But holding on to a role because it pays is not the same as that role being needed, and the training a pharmacist receives equips us for so much more than the final check. If we keep gripping the checking function as the reason we must exist, we’re betting the profession on a task that technicians — with proper governance structures in place, and increasingly with the support of AI — can safely carry.
And don’t take it from me. Look at the policy direction. Supervision reform is on the agenda, and the checking function is being unbundled from the pharmacist wherever it can safely be. As much as I’d love the old certainty to stay, we shouldn’t be clinging to it just because it’s our income stream. That bet loses slowly, then suddenly.
Where the role has to go: diagnose and manage
The key thing for pharmacists now is to develop your skills and become clinicians — genuinely able to diagnose and manage disease. That’s where the profession has to go, and it’s where I believe it will go. Picture the combination: the only walk-in professional in the health system, and that professional can assess you, diagnose you, manage your condition, prescribe where appropriate. That’s not a role under threat. That’s the most accessible clinician in the country.
| Checking-anchored role | Clinical role | |
|---|---|---|
| What you sell | A required signature | Diagnosis, management, prescribing |
| Who else can do it | Technicians + governance + AI | Only trained clinicians |
| Policy direction | Being unbundled | Being expanded |
| With 10-minute access | Convenient checking | The most accessible clinician in the NHS |
So — should a pharmacist be on site?
My answer: yes, I think they should. But do they need to be there for supervision? That’s the question worth sitting with, and my honest view is no — not for much longer, and not as the foundation of our value. Be on site because you’re the clinician people can actually reach. Develop the competency to diagnose and manage — if you want to build those skills there are plenty of courses available, and for hands-on clinical development, Clinickly is built for exactly that.
Let me know what your thoughts are — I’m interested either way. But whatever you conclude, don’t build your career on a task the system is already learning to do without us.
Frequently asked questions
Does a pharmacist legally have to be in the pharmacy?
Supervision has traditionally required a pharmacist’s presence for the sale and supply of medicines, but the policy direction is moving: dispensing doctor practices already operate dispensaries without a pharmacist present, and supervision reform is actively on the agenda. The practical question is no longer whether the rules will move — it’s what value you offer beyond the final check.
Can pharmacy technicians really do the checking?
With the right governance structures, training and accuracy-checking frameworks in place, much of the technical checking process can be safely delegated to technicians — increasingly supported by technology and AI. That’s precisely why anchoring your entire value to checking is a fragile strategy.
What is pharmacy's real advantage over other parts of the NHS?
Access. A pharmacist is the only healthcare professional most people can reach within about ten minutes, with no appointment. You can’t even get a haircut without booking. That walk-in access is unique — and it’s worth far more when the person you reach can diagnose and manage, not just check.
Should pharmacists fight to keep the supervision requirement?
It’s understandable — supervision underpins the traditional income model — but defending the checking role because it pays is not a long-term strategy. If checking can be done safely by technicians with governance and AI support, policy will eventually reflect that. The stronger play is to develop clinical skills so your presence is valuable for what you can do, not what you must witness.
What should pharmacists focus on instead?
Becoming clinicians: developing the competency to diagnose and manage conditions, prescribing where qualified, and building services around those skills. That’s the direction of policy and the only version of the role that grows rather than shrinks.
Comments
Do you think a pharmacist should be on site — and for what reason? I'd honestly like to hear where you stand on supervision. Leave a comment below — I read them all.