Dr Catriona Bradley ponders what will enable pharmacy technicians to contribute fully to safer, more accessible care as our health system evolves
Last month, I spoke at the final trans-national meeting of the EU Erasmus+ project PharmTech Mobility, which brought together partners from Ireland, Spain, Belgium and Portugal. The project sought to improve the quality, recognition and mobility of pharmacy technician education across Europe. As the meeting reflected on exchange and harmonisation, I found myself thinking about a different starting point: What would harmonisation within Ireland look like, not only in education, but in how pharmacy technicians are engaged across our health service?
My career has focused on the education and development of pharmacists, but pharmacy workforce planning cannot, and should not, separate the development of pharmacists from the development of pharmacy technicians. Over the past 15 years, in working with counterparts in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, I’ve seen technician roles expand as part of broader pharmacy strategies: Clear intentions, capability building, advanced practice, and credentialing. Yet even in the UK, with more ap- parent cohesion than we currently enjoy in Ireland, there has been concern that a fragmented professional voice limits pharmacy’s impact within healthcare.
Recent discussions about evolving professional leadership structures reflect the need for a common professional home and a clearer link to national health policy. The current transition of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to a Royal College of Pharmacy, which will be the professional leadership body for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, is anticipated to address the fragmentation.
In Ireland, the value of the pharmacy technician role has always been recognised in practice, and it’s receiving increasing attention from a range of stakeholders. Education providers are evolving programmes and exploring CPD and advanced qualifications. Research activity is growing, as demonstrated by PharmTech Mobility. The Department of Health has signalled intent to scope the technician role, in line with the PSI Work- force Intelligence recommendations. The National Association of Hospital Pharmacy Technicians (NAHPT) and Fórsa have set out a case for regulation. In hospitals, many technicians are already under- taking specialist and advanced roles. In short, there is momentum.
But momentum without cohesion will under-deliver. Each stakeholder has understandable priorities: Education providers work to institutional strategies and KPIs; representative bodies seek recognition and regulation; research follows funders’ aims; managers look to task?shifting to relieve pharmacist workload, while pharmacists are simultaneously absorbing tasks shifted from other parts of the system. If we could co? create a shared strategy, with technicians as partners, not consultees, we would be more likely to achieve solutions driven by service need rather than siloed interests.
The regulation question
The question I’m asked most often is simple: Should pharmacy technicians be regulated? At the PharmTech Mobility event, it was the first question asked, and my answer probably disappointed some: It depends what you think regulation will achieve.
When people argue for regulation, they often cite professional recognition, career structures, access to structured CPD, and consistently high standards. These are admirable goals, but they are not, in themselves, reasons for statutory regulation, and regulation does not automatically deliver them. Pharmacists have been regulated since 1875, yet career structures remain uneven, not withstanding recent welcome progress for hospital pharmacists. CPD access is usually determined by funding and contractual arrangements, not by regulators, whose CPD role is typically assurance/audit, not provision. As for standards, in mature professions these are often set above the regulatory floor by professional leader- ship and employers.
What regulation does, when aligned with right?touch regulation principles, is protect the public, primarily by setting minimum educational thresholds for entry and by ensuring these standards are consistently met. That is the core purpose. On current evidence, the risk case for additional statutory regulation in Ireland is not compelling: Technicians work in regulated environments (retail pharmacy businesses, hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry), within standardised systems, and under accountable supervision (ie, supervising/superintendent pharmacists in RPBs). It is not that medicines?use processes are risk?free; rather, existing oversight and controls materially mitigate risk.
Future-proofing pharmacy services
There is, however, a forward?looking argument that deserves consideration. Health systems everywhere face rising demand, workforce shortages and cost pressures. We routinely respond by enabling professionals to work at the top of their scope, and by task?shifting. In Ireland, vaccination, emergency medicine administration and common condition prescribing have shifted towards pharmacists, allowing GPs to focus on more complex care. The obvious question is, how do pharmacists create capacity for that expanded role?
Hiring more pharmacists alone is un-likely to be sustainable. Structured task? shifting to pharmacy technicians is the logical next step, but that requires deliberate enablement: Capability frameworks, education pathways, employer buy?in, reimbursement mechanisms, and (in some models) regulatory recognition. If we are serious about future?proofing pharmacy services, we should engage the technician workforce more strategically. A case can also be made for European mobility: If most EU member states regulate technicians, then Irish technicians’ portability may depend on mechanisms that enable mutual recognition, whether via statutory regulation or robust professional accreditation.
Beyond regulation: Leadership and cohesio
One caveat remains. Regulation alone will not deliver advanced practice, specialisation or career structures. That requires professional leadership of the technician agenda and collective stewardship across the system. Given the ongoing questions about professional leadership for pharmacists, it would be presumptuous for me to advise technicians on institutional form, but the principle stands: A multi?pronged strategy is essential, involving the Department of Health, HSE, employers, pharmacy technicians, representative organisations, educators, researchers and policy-makers.
If statutory regulation proves slow or unsuitable, self?regulation remain an option: Codes of conduct, minimum educational standards, CPD expectations and competency frameworks that assure quality and signal ambition. It is not an easy path, and it requires resourcing, but it would be a clear statement of intent and could, in time, smooth the way towards formal recognition.
So, to regulate or not to regulate? Perhaps the better question is: What combination of leadership, enablement and oversight will enable pharmacy technicians to contribute fully to safer, more accessible care as our health sys- tem evolves? As always, I’m interested in hearing what others think.
Dr Catriona Bradley is a pharmacist and psychologist and currently works as the Executive Director of the Irish Institute of Pharmacy. She’s particularly interested in exploring psychology in pharmacy and always welcomes pharmacists’ views & comments in this area at catriona1.bradley@gmail.com.
