Pharmacist suspended for falsifying records to meet Boots MUR target

Where is my comment gone? any explanation?

And mine!!!

Looks like some one is sitting there deleting all comments that are factual and speak against the ruling (or may be against the company involved) Its a shame C&D, that readers comments are outrightly deleted.

Hi D S,

I suspect that there will be many replies to this article, most I think will be expressing very strong feelings towards Boots. C&D will probably be checking carefully for libel or intemperate language etc.

Hopefully they will be restored.

Any comments C&D?

Hi D S and Clive, I'm afraid we have had to remove your comments as they were in breach of libel law. C+D actively encourages open debate, but please be careful when making allegations against individuals or organisations.

Posted on behalf of
Jennifer Richardson
Deputy & Features Editor
Chemist+Druggist

There have been many instances and articles about pressure on employee pharmacists, mainly concerning those who work for larger multiples. I am not surprised that there are pharmacists who may feel pressured to achieve the targets set, be they for sales or professional services. Whilst I accept Mr Bennets assertions that inappropriate pressure is not tolerated. My question is who's definition of "inappropriate" are we working to? It's a bit like "reasonable" - very elastic in it's meaning. It is possible that there are middle managers who do not share the views of Mr Bennett. I am sure a company as diligent & professional as Boots will be looking closely not just at store level management but those in the tier above

All 400 MURs have to be achieved in 8 months + surveys + number of repeat dispensing+ NMS + reduction on hours and staff... no doubt why she would do that...

I feel so sorry for her. The whole System is wrong. The GPhC should spend their time investigating these multi-nationals .

It is a terrible shame that this young pharmacist did not recieve the support she needed from her line managers when she was encountering resistance from older more established pharmacy staff in her new pharmacy.
It would appear that this unfortunate young pharmacist was "left to sink or swim" which is an awful way for anyone to be managed.
The GPHC do seem to have taken a hard line in this case and they risk damaging their own reputation with such unsympathetic treatment of pharmacists.
I also hope that the young lady in this case has a good holiday during her three month suspension and then gets back to caring for her patients in a different organisation.

there patently is pressure to do MURs fom companies-some phone the pharmacy every day to check the number you have done..they dont want to know how the patients are doing but what money the business is earning...this pharmacist was under pressure and was not able (why?) to get the staff to help ?
I would hazard a guess that some GPs will not be pleased with this...
locum pharmacist

what constitutes unaceptable pressure and how will it be NOT tolerated? I feel sorry for the poor pharmacist/manager . There is a clear lack in the law and pharmacy regulations to allow us to act as professionals and stand up /amend/review targets without falling victim to the ever increasing demands for profit. This lack brings the profession into disrepute from the get go. Who will address this?

GPhC have been utterly consistent with their handling of any case involving dishonesty. They may have been very harsh, but that is something we all have to accept. Their role is to protect the public, not us.

I feel really sorry for this poor lady. Being a front-line pharmacist is a very stressful existence, I'd hope that we can find more room for compassion and empathy for the circumstances of the individual when considering problems of this nature in future.

Obviously we have to take care in what we post, as do not want to fall foul of libel laws and have to be factual.

I suppose from the GPC prespective she has admitted to falsifcation of records and has led to Boots possibly being paid for services that have not been provided (I wonder if any monies were returned to NHS). I appreciate they are there to uphold standards but she has lost her job (resgined)and obviously sincerely regrets her actions; you wonder if that has been fully appreciated.

With regards to Boots putting pressure on employees, Mr Bennet's comments are interesting. I am sure that organisationally they would not intentially seek to do this. However, I work with the PDA (a union rep) and as a Locum myself and have seen varying degrees of pressure to meet targets such as MURs by various Pharmacy Companies, not specific to Boots. It can very much depend upon your line managers, but have seen various tactics from threats of performance management, league tables sent out to all Pharmacies in an area highlighting "under performance" and daily telephone calls from area managers and deputies. If you are Locum you are threatened with cancellation of future bookings and rate reductions if dont do MURs / NMS, etc.

We are not so naive to believe Pharmacies are charities, especially in these times we need to captilise on possible income streams. I personally enjoy doing proper MURs / NMS and see patient benefits in numerous cases. However, there is no negociation or flexibility of targets out upon us. The 400 figure is the NHS imposed limit, i.e maximum. In some Pharmacies this is quite achieveable. However, this has been made a minimum target for most companies with no regard to script volume, staffing resource and other expectations on the Pharmacists. For a comparison the national speed limit is 70mph, that doesn't mean we must drive at this speed and no less, regardless of road conditions.

The GPC seem quick to say we are the RP so should challenge unacceptible standards, pressures and environments. But where is the back up from a regulatory perspective taking action on thoss who try and impose those conditons? We all know if you kick up fuss as a Locum you won't be asked back.

It is not a problem specific to one company and Boots may not guilty of it in this case. But pressures are being applied via various guises with little or no allowance for conditions in individual Pharmacies. This not something to be tackled by GPC alone, but by all Pharmacy Organsiations. If nothing is done then I am sure we will see more of this thing happening (falsification of records) and a lot more that is never detected. Which will put pressure on Pharmacists, patient safety at risk and damage Pharamcy Companies' reputations.

Rant over - These comments are my own thoughts and representing any organisation

I think the real issue here is the falsification of data. Surely as professionals this is not acceptable, and sanctions need to be levied.

Surely, you cant expect Boots to vindicate this action of falsification, they have a duty to report this to the GPhC.

The easiest reaction is to side with whom we view as the victim, was it really the Pharmacist who falsified data.....was she "forced" or somehow indirectly "told" to fabricate data?? I presume not. No one really knows the motive except the pharmacist herself. It may well have been pressure, it may have been greed driven bonuses...who knows.

Dear all,

Please please please read the judgment:

http://www.pharmacyregulation.org/sites/default/files/Watson%202060846%202012-08-07.pdf

Then comment.

Care to read the judgment at 7C? Then comment.

Fair point. After reading that, you must rule out financial incentives. Therefore, it seems very peculiar why she did this. Anyway, best people to judge our infact the regulators.

Anyway, I wish her well for her future.

Good Comments Stephen...Absolutely you wouldnt be asked back if you kick up a "fuss", In fact some of them ring your Agency and make a complaint, often extremely trivial....As a Locum with over 10 years experience, I have seen a marked deterioration in relationship in the last few years between multiple employees and Locums, some of them seem to view you with suspicion as soon as you walk into the store....Every Employee that I have spoken to during my Locum Bookings, the majority of them talk about pressure to meet targets...Those making the Complaint were predominantely Multiple Employees...Some of the "Big Wigs" need to get on the Shop floor and see for themselves the pressure at the front line of Retail Pharmacy.
My Suspicion is that this Young pharmacist was under pressure, but obviously she shouldnt have falsified the records...The Committee found that she was not put under "improper" pressure...?! All very subjective if you ask me, what is the definition of "Improper" pressure in this case...?

Paul makes a very important point. I must confess to not reading the full judgement first.

Having read it I believe the GPC to have made a reasonable judgement, which she was expecting. As I originally said she had admitted to the falsification of the records.

I agree with Rajive that this type of action cannot be vindicated and would not argue with Boots reporting to the GPC.

But the fact still remains there are a lot of our colleagues and fellow Pharmacists out there who have real and percieved pressures to meet targets. Defining reasonable and inappropriate is a tricky thing and can be very subjective. I still firmly believe we have to address this culture of inflexible targets, in some cases bullying tactics and take in to acoount other factors. Overall it is not good for the profession, compnaies or patients. You just have to ask Pharmacists and support staff as you go round. Yes we face uncertain and harsh economic times. But in some quarters we have lost the goodwill that makes us go that extra step for patients.

It is not a case of greed for bonuses either in some cases it is meet targets or be performance managed out. Think of Locums too, In the past year we have seen some companies drop rates two or more times, yet they still expect the same workload and targets to be done.

In response to MURs, it was requested be a manager that I was not to return to a pharmacy because when they asked if I would "do" some MURs, I responded by saying "Only if it was appropriate." Suffice to say they did not like that comment.