GPhC chided one Boots branch for target pressures since 2013
Only one Boots pharmacy out of more than 1,000 inspected by the regulator has been reprimanded over targets or incentives
General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) inspectors have only criticised one Boots pharmacy in relation to the targets it sets its staff, the multiple has claimed.
Boots “took immediate action to address the issues raised” by the GPhC, it told C+D yesterday (April 21). The pharmacy in question was one of the 1,135 branches visited by the regulator since it updated its inspection model in November 2013, Boots added.
The health and beauty giant made the comments following allegations by the Guardian last week (April 13) that managers encourage pharmacists to abuse medicines use reviews (MURs) for financial gain. Boots told C+D at the time that it “doesn’t recognise” the newspaper’s claims, and stressed it has reminded its pharmacists of its MUR guidelines.
However, it since admitted that a single branch inspected by the GPhC over the last three years was found to require improvement on measures relating to incentives and targets".
Boots would not disclose the details of the branch or when it was inspected.
"Clear professional standards"
Boots takes reports that its pharmacists are being put under “undue pressure” very seriously, it said yesterday. It has “clear professional standards” that it adheres to, and trusts the “professional judgement” of its pharmacists, it added.
“If we find any issues of undue pressure from managers, we always seek to rectify them,” Boots said.
The GPhC revealed last week (April 14) that it is "liaising" with the Pharmacists' Defence Association (PDA) over material the organisation shared with the Guardian from an unpublished survey it claims was taken by more than 600 Boots employees.
C+D will be hosting a debate on Twitter, to discuss MURs, patient safety and targets – today (April 22) at 2pm. Join in and share your views by following @ChemistDruggist and using the hashtag #MURabuse
Have you ever felt under pressure to carry out unnecessary targets?
We want to hear your views, but please express them in the spirit of a constructive, professional debate. For more information about what this means, please click here to see our community principles and information