Archive for the ‘Pharmacy Rules’ Category

MUR BONUS FOR LOCUM PHARMACISTS

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

At this time last year, a number of larger and smaller multiples were offering a bonus to locum pharmacists who carried out MUR’s. Some were paying £5 or £10 per MUR or offering to pay locums and extra £5 per hour if they completed 5 MUR’s. It made sense – they were asking locums to do more work on a daily basis and rewarding them for the extra income they generated – a no brainer.  Locums enjoyed carrying out MUR’s as they felt they were making a real difference for the patients and bringing in a bit of extra income for the pharmacy. They were wiling to put up with the consequent problems carrying out an MUR lead to.

Then, things changed. The usual large multiple short sightedly decided that MUR’s were now  “part of the daily job” for locums and other companies followed their lead and  stopped paying. Guess what? Many locum pharmacists then refused to do MUR’s or cut the number they were doing. Many of our locums said that after completing an MUR they were usually welcomed by a queue of disgruntled customers adding stress and pressure to an already difficult job. They also informed us that pharmacy managers’ bonus had an MUR element and so they were putting pressure on locum pharmacists to do more and more MUR’s to an extent where they felt that the dispensing process was being compromised. Why put themselves through this for no reward.

Come on pharmacies – reward locum pharmacists for the extra work and the additional income they bring in to the business – it was a no brainer at the beginning of 2009 and it still is in 2010!

RP Interpretations “unlawful”

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

So Lloyds Pharmacy and Bupa have already have their interpretations of the RP regulations brought into question by the RPSGB (PJ Online article below)

http://www.pjonline.com/news/pda_claims_rp_rules_are_being_interpreted_unfairly

I guess that this was always going to happen with any new working practices but it will be interesting to see how the RPSGB respond. The problems have been highlighted by the PDA who suggest that the Society may have changed the RP guidelines in favour of the multiples. I hope that this was not done intentionally and that the multiples wouldn’t “place” people on the council to make sure their commercial interests are represented ahead of the professional interests of their employee pharmacists. Maybe I’m being niave  to think they wouldn’t as their main objective is to maximise shareholder (or owner) return. Linking this to the recent European Court Ruling

http://www.pjonline.com/forum/pharmacy_ownership_0

The PDA have shown that they are acting in the interest of the individual pharmacist. Is this an example of how a leopard never changes it’s spots and that the new PLB will still put bricks-and-mortar pharmacies ahead of flesh-and-blood pharmacist as it always seems to have done. I hope it isn’t because if it is, why should i join it?

Call to delay RP regulations from PDA

Friday, July 24th, 2009

You should find a copy of the email from mark Kalziol of the PDA blow. It’s pretty self-explanatory:

The PDA’s campaign to persuade the government to reconsider the
Responsible Pharmacist regulations and to delay their implementation is
gathering momentum. We have now written to the government requesting a
formal meeting and we are also arranging meetings with a number of
influential MP’s.

Key to the success of this initiative, is that we will need to provide
evidence to government to show the extent of the problem.

Already we have received more than 2,000 responses to our electronic
survey and a recently launched petition calling for a delay of the
implementation of the regulations has produced 600 responses.

However, we need even more responses if we are to improve our chances of
success.

We therefore urgently appeal to members who have not yet participated in
the survey or the petition to do so as quickly as possible.

Complete the Survey: http://www.the-pda.org/newsviews/nv_survey1.html?id=441

Sign the Petition: http://www.gopetition.com/online/29439.html

Regards

Mark Koziol

Chairman, The Pharmacists’ Defence Association

The Old Firestation
69 Albion Street
Birmingham
B1 3EA

Tel: 0121 694 7000
Fax: 0121 694 7001

Swine Flu

Tuesday, May 19th, 2009

After the initial media frenzy, all seems to have gone quiet on the Swine flu front. However when you look at the data, it looks like the incidence of confirmed cases is accelerating. The BBC reported today that globally 10,000 cases have now been reported with some really acute increases – 79 confirmed in Japan over the weekend.

Locum Pharmacists need to be aware of the symptoms of swine flu, especially in holiday makers returning from Mexico and the southern states of USA.

Link to NHS guidance on swine flu symptoms below

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Pandemic-flu/Pages/Symptoms.aspx

Responsible Pharmacist toolkit

Tuesday, May 5th, 2009

I’ve being using the time i have due my incapacitation to read through the responsible pharmacist toolkit. (Mine arrived on Friday) To be honest, apart from the bureaucratic changes in terms of the need to sign in as the responsible pharmacist when required, I don’t see things changing too dramatically after 1st October. The only thing that does change is that pharmacy staff are able to sell GSL’s in the absence of the pharmacists (as long as the absence if for less that two hours) which is long over due.

The toolkit does answer allay many of the questions I had about responsible pharmacist regulations and has a very good section for locums. As someone who is usually only too happy to knock the RPSGB, I have to say that they have done a good job this time. I particularly like the personalised “responsible pharmacist sign” and “notice for pharmacy staff”

I think more fundamental changes will occur after the changes to supervision that are likely to happen in 2011.

Link to online responsible pharmacist toolkit below

Responsible pharmacist online toolkit