Pharmacist suspended for manipulating Boots customer feedback survey

No patients involved or harmed, no other profession involved, no money involved, no harm done to anyone. Why did this go to GPhC??? Surely an internal issue between Boots and Mr Olinari (who seemed to be reacting to excess pressure from his line manager)

I agree with David.

I do feel sorry for Mr Olinari who does seem to have been very harshly treated for a "crime" that would appear to have been brought about by the pressures applied by his employer.

I also agree with these 2 comments.
As an ex Boots pharmacist, I know that the pressure exerted to get the CCM up is very high.
There are other 'easier' methods employed by staff to get the numbers up.
The pharmacist did not try to hide anything when challenged. .
It is a hammer to crack a nut.

Looks like the GPhC has become like the RPSGB. They have got this wrong. It has nothing to do with his ability to do his job. Nobody was at risk.

The GPC should suspend the superindent of Boots for the pressure his team exerted on this man.

Knowing this company I am not surprised in the slightest.. The pressure that is piled on pharmacy staff is unacceptable in my opinion but pretty much par for the course. As others have said there were safer way of boosting CCM scores.

interesting

I agree with the content and sentiment that everyone records over this lamentable incident.Poor pharmacist! Boots are despicably commercial in spite of their "customer care" jargon and all they really care about are numbers and volumes.
If no danger to the public - what on earth are the GPhC getting involved for??!!
By the way - always thought that offering patients boots points to sign up to pharmacy services clearly breached our code of ethics????

it is unethical to offer an inducement to be given a prescription not to sign up for a service that you do not have to use! so everyone sign up for the service get your points then cancel the authority! when i complained to the society years ago about this bribe that was the reply i was given.

So, the message coming from the GPhC is, if you are going to do something that might impair your fitness to practice, make sure it is something reasonably serious - taking recreational drugs say (in which case you will get off with a warning so that your career is not damaged) - rather than something trivial like this. This poor pharmacist has already been punished enough by losing his job.

He was dismissed from boots
Was this not enough !!!!

IF Boots place much emphasis on such an easily manipulated system lets all call the line and say what poor opinions we all have re this service, sounds to me the poor lad may be better off out of the company .

I heartily second that idea - why the GPC NEVER investigates the intolerable and unethical bullying and pressure put on pharmacists by senior unqualified management who have never dispensed a prescription in their life beggars belief! Most senior unqualified managers in multiples would not recognise an MUR if it jumped out of their cornflakes and introduced itself!

The sanctions seem too harsh to me. A one month suspension to emphasise the seriousness of dishonesty (which is a deliberate act) is more appropriate in my opinion. Even GPhC agreed that the link to bonus was not proven and four months suspension is too severe

can you expand??

I agree that the sanction seems harsh, however I have to disagree with most comments that the GPhC should not have got involved.

If the pharmacist involved allowed their judgment to become impaired in such a negative way on this occasion, then how would they behave in a situation where a patient is forcing them to perform to their whims? Full credit to the pharmacist in owning up straight away which all pharmacists should be encouraged to do when they have strayed from what is right and moral.

The GPhC needed to send out a message that any wrong behaviour will not be tolerated in the profession. Unfortunately someone has to be made an example of for everyone else to see what is acceptable. I am no expert on Boots, but would this pharmacist have been sacked for not meeting the targets? I suspect (hope) not, so the decision they reached on how to act was flawed, given if it was uncovered they would face the sack for misconduct.

Andrew,

I think most would regard loosing your job for such a “crime” was a very harsh punishment in itself.

There is also the question of who reported Mr Olinari to the GPC.

If it was Boots who reported him, (after sacking him), then I think many would consider this to be a rather nasty and vindictive act

This was not a professional matter - it was purely an internal company system which it seems that Mr Olinari was getting pressurised to comply with. Imagine getting texts from a line manger "implicitly reproaching him" on, what i assume, a personal phone during his time off. As I read it there was no patient forcing him to perform to their whim. I would hope that Mr Olinari would deal with such a situation in an entirely different way. He was merely trying to get his line manager off his back by giving him (and head office) what he/they wanted. It wasn't even the NHS satisfaction survey. Does this mean that any Lloyds pharmacist who has incorrectly scanned a barcode (used to calculate prescription waiting time) can now be sanctioned with a 4 month suspension?? This, as I see it, is on about the same level. Should I be worried about suspension if I get a speeding ticket - a far more serious offence - not a company matter but completely illegal!! Is this maybe why they are producing more pharmacists - to cover those of us soon to be suspended!!

The bright side of this is that GPhC has set up a precedent to take up and deal with such issues. I would imagine that GPhC could not turn down a complaint from a Boots pharmacist if they felt themselves under pressure from the company which could affect their professional or clinical judgement. As GPhC is not the professional regulator for pharmacists only and would be oblidged to take on board and act on reciprocal grounds, after Mr Olinari's suspension decision.

Clive, most right minded people have sympathy for someone in this situation who obviously exercised poor judgement. Boots do have a facilility in store if a team leader or pharmacist witnesses a member of staff giving a good performance dealing with customer care and it can be fed back to the manager.

Also, Boots are serious about delivering 'legendary customer care', they do care a great deal about customer service and they are very clear with all staff on the rules and regulations that all employees are required to adhere. It is very important to respect and work within the parameters which they set out to ensure everyone knows how the land lies.

GPhC - intoduce a fixed penalty notice system please! How much did this whole investigation cost? It happened in 2010 so I guess there has been a lot of man-hours and legal costs incurred here.

Surely if this pharmacist was given the chance to say "yes I admit this was a stupid thing to do" end of story £500 fine. End of.

Where is the natural justice here? Losing your job is a great price to pay - then worrying from 2010 as to whether you will be stuck off is another. Nightmare!

This sends out one message - never admit anything! Say nothing and let the accuser get the proof. No comment - that's where we are going - get this sorted please GPhC. But I can't help but think we are all wasting our time as they are not accountable to us are they.