MURs: missing the target?

Well said Stephen. Maybe MUR numbers should be changed to reflect script volume. Hence a pharmacy doing 10k items a month can do 400 max, but one doing only 4000 can do 200. max.
However this banding could lead to problems experienced with NMS!!
I like the analogy with the speed limit!

Something does need to be sorted though. This can't go on long term. Some younger less experienced pharmacists may feel unable to complain or ask for help, and then every day is a nightmare. Then the national press become involved like with the Tax payers' Alliance, leading the profession as a whole into disrepute.
Some patients have now picked up on the fact that MURs are simply viewed as a money maker, and I think this will increase as NHS funds become subject to increased scrutiny over the next few years.
MURs should be about quality NOT quantity and this needs to be addressed by the powers that be.
Why are they not being advertised to patients by the NHS? I've had medicine bags this year with flu ads on them, cancer warnings on them, why not MURs on them?!

So true about MURs. I wonder despite the fact that GPhC faced a case, where a pharmacist openely admitted that she lied about MUR because of pressure ,its not taking it seriously to be honest. Doesnt GPhC know what multiples are doing regarding MURs?
How come they say that companies are not putting pressures on pharmacists? Do they want to tell us that pharmacists are responsible themselves of taking too much pressure?
Come on!! Be realistic. Please ! stop playing " Politics" " politics"

Chad is correct in what he says and that the situation with MURs needs sorting.

The problem is that the funding for MURs was not new money added but taken from elsewhere in the Pharmacy budget. The simple fact is that Pharmacy has to max out on MURs to financially stand still and for this reason it is hard to see how quality can take precedence over quantity……certainly for the multiples. Additionally because this was not new money, this service invariably has to be undertaken with existing staffing/resources hence the many examples of extreme pressure being put on employee pharmacists to reach the magic 400.

Unless it is sorted out soon, it is not hard to see another newspaper exposé by the Taxpayers Alliance or similar causing funding for the service being completely pulled.

Quite right Clive. It is time for PSNC to admit that they were gravely in error when they agreed to the MUR setup and to take some action to remedy the situation. The number of MURs needed to recover the lost remuneration is far in excess of that necessary, desirable or even honestly achievable.

What has been done has been done, the main focus is that there needs to be a mechanism with clout whereby every single professional pharmacist has the legal power to stop profiteering off patients. The first step is to utilize the present mechanisms as outlined in the article. The second step may be to amend these in a manner specific to pharmacists and specific to pharmacy and financial gain to themselves or a third party . The third step may be to extend this as a new role offered to help the NHS / make sure every pharmacy is compliant with the new regulations. Creatively making every pharmacist a guardian over funding/monies/accounts vs patient care may assist us tackle workplace pressure, competition with nurses and GP's, and oversupply of new graduates as well as the relevance of the pharmacy course in the future. This will be re-establishing a niche for us as a front line specialist healthcare provider in this cost-focused era and protect the patient. An Idea worth thinking about ?

Seems unreasonable for some pharmacists to be able to tackle as many MURs as humanily possible. We all should know of the one very chatty one that comes in the door - and we've lost the pharmacist for anything up to an hour, only to greet him with a nice pile of waiting prescriptions and the like.

It's a little bit of a shame the standard isn't to just have two pharmacists as the norm. But I guess that would put people like me out of the job. Would certainly have no excuse for MUR targets then!

I do not practice in UK very long, but from beginning there was pressure to conduct MUR's, I remember that some remuneration was given in form of books, which has stopped now. As for pressure, there is too much pressure put on pharmacists, I personally experienced one area manager who told me even after two MUR's done myself a day with not sufficient support staff, that if I will not do another one, he will not book me. Well it is good to know that there is some way to protect ourselves against bullying area managers, who do not think about patient first, but about their bonuses. I like speaking with customers and understand it is part of our job. I like Day Lewis attitude to remunerate pharmacists who do conduct them and nowadays Tesco started to differentiate rate for pharmacists willing to do them and the others. I like speed limit comparison from Stephen Riley, very true.

It is all about teamwork at the end of the day. In some branches there is staff who are unable to ask proper WWHAM questions, so it is difficult to oversee somebody on the till, serve customers, manage to do prescription in 10 minutes and to have in mind that if I will not do 2 MUR's I will be maybe not booked again in nowadays climate and mortgage arrangements or whatever personal commitments we all have. On the other side booking system for direct locums with some multiples is sometimes tricky, too, because when you do not have witness = agency, it is easy for them to say sorry, we double booked you and not to pay travel expenses or at least travel time in case it is their mistake. In the past it was better as for the rate, but nowadays I prefer to work with 'somebody' through agency, because I have at least witness and somebody to push a bit for me, otherwise I would spend reporting things to PDA. Well and in few situations had happened that member of staff pg=hysically pushed pharmacists out of computer. In one occassion Such person was promoted and in other we are not sure, hopefully disciplined. We should get honour we deserve back and it would help if decriminalisation of dispensing errors ( unintentionall) would be legalised, too. What do you think?

Just a though but, if online doctors can prescribe, can an online pharmacist do MUR's?

Hmm so the multiples are pushing MURs as they are "simply responding to an operating environment"? ie see the money and grab it. Would they care so much about their pharmacists doing MURs if they weren't being paid for them...? Hell no!
So Asda are "proud" of the number of MURs it has conducted?* They are proud of the size of their bank balance! And also they "believe the combination of pharmacist and non-pharmacist manager working together has been key to this success" do they?* Why don't they hire pharmacists for these area manager positions??????? In fact, I don't want to hear the answer to that because it will be a poorly fabricated lie that will make me feel sick to the bottom of my stomach.
And lastly there is Mr Noel Wardle, a partner at legal firm Charles Russell who says "I think most pharmacists would agree that, in a reasonably busy pharmacy, there should be scope to provide MURs" . Mr Wardle, until you have actually worked in a reasonably busy pharmacy and actually know that you could perform MURs to a standard that pharmacists and doctors find acceptable, whilst also being timed to do prescriptions accurately with potential legal proceedings if not, managing pharmacy staff ( only the tiniest tip of the iceberg of what we do), then please stick to your job and don't tell me mine. Most pharmacists I know work above and beyond the hours that they are paid for to try and do their job properly and I'm proud of all those pharmacists who give it a real go even though they have got no REAL support at all.

*This comment has been edited - C+D