Lloyds responds to allegations of 'constant' MUR pressure
The multiple has commented on the case of a former employee who was struck off for falsifying MURs
EXCLUSIVE
Lloydspharmacy has responded to allegations by one of its former employees that “constant” pressure to reach a target of 400 medicines use reviews (MUR) led her to falsify the pharmacy's records.
Pharmacist Aleksandra Murray, registration number 2025005, was struck off by the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) fitness-to-practise committee on May 4 after she admitted to lying about completing 19 MURs in 2014, as well as forging patient signatures on two forms.
Ms Murray, who was not present at the hearing, claimed that she was under “constant pressure” to hit a target of 400 MURs a year, the regulator heard at her hearing.
Lloyds response
In response to the claims, Lloydspharmacy told C+D yesterday (May 19) that it encourages its pharmacists to discuss medicines use with all patients “regardless of whether we get paid for the service”, if this is best for the patient.
The multiple is “absolutely clear” that MURs should only ever be carried out “to meet a clear patient need, in line with the inclusion criteria and with integrity”, it stressed.
"Ongoing monitoring of services"
All services – including MURs – are part of Lloydspharmacy’s “core offering”, and are something it monitors on an “ongoing basis”, it added.
In its response, Lloydspharmacy did not specifically address the issues C+D highlighted about the allegations of "constant pressure" to hit the 400 MUR target.
Read the GPhC's full determination on Ms Murray's conduct here.
MORE ON MURs:
Blog: Deliver quality MURs or don't bother, says pharmacist Claire Field
Read an anonymous pharmacist's stories of pressure to deliver MURs at various companies – and the companies' responses – here
Read C+D's coverage of the Guardian's allegations that Boots pharmacists are pressured to conduct unnecessary MURs
What do you make of Lloydspharmacy's response?
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
