Managers at Boots, the UK’s biggest pharmacy chain, have been pressuring their pharmacists to abuse Medicine Use Reviews, providing them to patients who do not need them or cannot use them, the Guardian alleges.
And Anthony Tassone, Victorian president of the Pharmacy Guild, says this sort of example is a good reason to keep pharmacy ownership in the hands of pharmacists.
MURs are carried out by pharmacists, who offer patients health, diet and medicines management advice.
The NHS pays £28 for each MUR carried out; MURs are capped at 400 per pharmacy to prevent abuse.
“The Guardian has seen a 2008 email from a senior manager for another region that states: ‘I personally don’t want colleagues to feel ‘brow-beaten’ but we do need to deliver our targets of 400 MCUs [medicine check-ups – another name for MURs] per store this financial year for two reasons:
“’1. Delivering 400 MCUs is a measure of Excellent Patient Care
“’2. The company can make £28 profit for each MCU, so each one we don’t deliver is a lost £28’,” writes Chakrabortty.
The Guardian also cites a survey, which remains unpublished, by Britain’s trade union for pharmacists, the Pharmacists’ Defence Association.
In this survey, more than 600 Boots pharmacists (a significant percentage as this is more than 10% of Boots pharmacists) responded.
More than 75% said that the statement “How often do you believe financial cutbacks imposed by your main employer have directly impacted upon patient safety?” was true around half or more of the time.
The pharmacists also reported being pressured into conducting MURs whether patients needed them or not.
Another article, also by Chakrabortty, went into depth about the strain placed on Boots pharmacists, particularly with the example of “Tony,” who has developed depression as a result of “virtually constant stress”.
The Guild’s Anthony Tassone said the Australian pharmacy model makes pharmacy owners more accountable.
“With deregulation, and big companies answering to shareholders before patients, there really is the risk of profits being the highest priority before patient care,” Tassone told the AJP.
“It’s always a risk when we have a shareholder interest being first and foremost.
“With restrictions in Australia to limit pharmacy ownership to pharmacists, they’re accountable to the public as they’re registered health professionals under a national scheme.”
Tassone said that Australian guidelines could offer protection to any pharmacists subject to similar pressure to provide services, should that occur here.
“We have a responsibility, with taxpayer funds, that they’re used appropriately in targeting the right patients to get the best outcomes,” he says.
“We also in Australia have Pharmacy Board guidelines on appropriate workloads and obligations of proprietors to ensure an appropriate working environment for pharmacists to practice in.
“Directing pharmacists to undertake, or be expected to deliver a certain number of reviews, irrespective of the suitability or eligibility of that patient, could possibly be considered incitement or directing unprofessional conduct under the national law.
“I think pharmacist ownership of pharmacies has the owners of the pharmacies accountable to the public and the registration board, and it’s a system that works and will continue to work, and is capable of doing more for the Australian health system.”
Since the publication of the Guardian articles Boots has made a statement to UK pharmacy publication Chemist + Druggist, saying that it did not recognise the claims made in the Guardian.
“Boots makes it clear to staff that services should not be carried out ‘inappropriately’, it stressed,” writes C+D.
“All of its staff are ‘empowered’ to use their professional judgement to assess the appropriateness of offering services, it added.
“The drive for strong financial performance has never been to the detriment of our constant priority on pharmacy and delivering the best healthcare services in the communities we serve.”