Layer 1

GPhC tight-lipped on possible Boots MUR action

The Guardian alleged last month that Boots employees were pressured into conducting unnecessary MURs

Regulator is still considering information on target pressures submitted by the Pharmacists’ Defence Association

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has remained tight-lipped about any action it will take in the wake of continuing allegations of pressure from multiples to hit medicines use review (MUR) targets.

The regulator told C+D that it is sill “considering” the Pharmacists' Defence Association (PDA) survey that showed that 55% of just under 2,000 employee and locum pharmacists at the multiples feel commercial incentives or targets compromise patient safety or professional judgement "around half" of the time or more.

The PDA’s findings were used by the Guardian to back up the newspaper's allegations that Boots is pressuring its staff to perform unnecessary MURs.

"Carefully considering any relevant information"

When asked by C+D last week whether the GPhC would launch a full investigation into Boots, the regulator replied: “We will carefully consider any other relevant information when deciding how we need to respond to the issues that have been raised.”

More on MURs

In a fitness-to-practise case published earlier this month, a former Lloydspharmacy employee told the GPhC that “constant pressure” to perform 400 MURs a year had led her to falsify 19 MUR forms.

Read what action the GPhC has taken to address target pressures at Boots so far.

Watch C+D’s video to see what the PDA has been doing since it published its survey on pressure at the multiples.

 


Do you feel pressured into conducting unnecessary MURs?

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

15 Comments

Meera Sharma, Community pharmacist

Why on earth is the GPhC so tight-lipped about this issue?? Time and time again, almost every pharmacist has raised this issue and apart from the PDA who have actually done something about it, the GPhC has chosen to turn a blind eye. Think the C & D should conduct an investigation into the GPhC now......or do I see another Guardian article coming up?? Shameful that this is all the GPhC can say at this stage, with more than 6 years evidence behind these allegations, or, should we all send our individual evidence to the media as well for it to be taken seriously?? 

Anonymous Anonymous, Information Technology

I know what there action will be... It will involve bending over

Paul Miyagi, Information Technology

GPhC are as disingenuous as Boots . They will try to riggle out of doing anything stating that 55% of the 2000 respondants is insufficient evidence. Oh i,m so glad I've retired.  It brings a new meaning to the word CORRUPT .

M Yang, Community pharmacist

Perhaps it's time to initiate another petition and mobilise our greatest source of support: the public. The GPhC needs to maintain whatever reputation it has as a regulator, 55% of 2000 respondents might be ignored but millions of signatures from the public is another thing.

cummunity pharmacist, Pharmacy

DONT HOLD YOUR BREATH FOLKS .... AFTER THE MINOR WRIST SLAP TO P2Y  BOOTS WILL NOT BE QUAKING IN THEIR BOOTS

Bal Singh, Locum pharmacist

But if someone slanders GPHC on this forum, I'm sure the action by them would but swifter onto an INDIVIDUAL.... rather than a company..... Although it's clear to even a lay person which of the two actions brings the profession into disrepute.

N A, Non healthcare professional

I cannot understand why, in the middle of all of this, not one of the candidates standing for election to the RPS boards in England, Scotland or Wales mentions working conditions in his/her candidate statement. If it wasn't important enough to any of them to mention, then it won't be important enough when they are appointed. This means that the RPS is going to be very poor at challenging issues like this for the foreseeable future. http://www.rpharms.com/what-s-happening-/news_show.asp?id=3993

Ghengis Pharm, Locum pharmacist

I keep saying this. The RPS is not fit for purpose and should be shut down and replaced with a body that represents pharmacists.  Properly.  In the media and in Parliament.

PoPeYe- Popeys Car Wash, Locum pharmacist

Agreed- I'm not even convinced that the RPS could represent the Lollypop Guild.

Harry Tolly, Pharmacist

I certainly would not vote for any of the candidates that are employed by the multiples.

Harry Tolly, Pharmacist

“We will carefully consider any other relevant information when deciding how we need to respond to the issues that have been raised.”

........................................................................................................................................................................

https://kar.kent.ac.uk/47047/1/WP%20286%202014%20MURs.pdf

............................................................................................................................................................................

The GPhC also needs to reopen the cases where the Boots employee Pharmacists were struck off. I urge the PDA to support these pharmacists right to justice even if they were not PDA members.

Pill Counter, Pharmacy

Methinks GPhC won't be taking any action.........

Super Pharmacist, Community pharmacist

Me thinks you're very much accurate in your line of thought

How High?, Community pharmacist

If they did, wouldn't change a thing........

Bal Singh, Locum pharmacist

Imagine if they ruled..... "boots pharmacy contracts can no longer claim for Mrs or NMS"..... That would be decisive, welcomed and show clear Consequences.... I'm sure boots would provide a legal rebuff, but that shouldn't be the worry of the GPHC right?

Job of the week

Pharmacy Pre-Registration Pharmacists 2019-2020
London, Surrey, Hampshire, Kent
£18,000