20,924 reported #pharmacy closures in a year. Most common reported reason: “locum could not be found”.
Was the locum hiding somewhere, in a bizarre game of hide and seek?
Or couldn’t they find a locum *willing to work in the conditions on offer*?
Did they try to find a locum?
In no cases was the reported reason “it would have cost more for a locum in a free market than we wanted to pay” or “unable to find a pharmacist willing to work in the conditions in the pharmacy”. The reported reasons don’t tell the whole story.
2/
Based on the C&D article, there appear to be 5,665 closures for which no reason is listed. (20924-10637-2891-811-432-221-141-74-19-10-16-7= 5665). Did NHSE allow the pharmacy to close without requiring the owner to provide a reason?
3/
The closures were reported by only 3,660 pharmacies. Is there a compliance issue among pharmacies who submitted no reports, or did they genuinely not have any closures?
4/
“Some have argued that there is a concerning lack of pharmacists” - why not publish the data on the number of registered pharmacists and pharmacies, and how this has changed over time? See for example:
Over 20,000 closures in one year, and still no meaningful action or sanctions from the GPhC. This is the organisation that’s about to draft further standards for superintendents. @prof_standards@CommonsHealth
6/
NHSE collects this data from pharmacies; what data does it collect from locums?
7/
For how many of these 20,924 closures did NHSE impose a sanction?
8/
13,492 out of 20,924 closures (64%) were Boots and Lloyds. What investigations have NHSE and the GPhC done in this regard?
9/
Four years ago, an FOI request revealed that 5,878 closures occurred in a 12-month period in 2016-17. This recent figure of 20,924 closures between Oct 2021 and Sep 2022 is more than 3.5 times as many.
Meanwhile the NHS and the GPhC expect pharmacists to raise concerns when things go wrong. What is the point, if matters like this are not addressed appropriately? What are the consequences for those who make the decisions to close?
11/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The change would pave the way for a pharmacist-only professional leadership body which doesn’t have the issue of trying to represent two distinct groups, whose interests will often conflict and compete.
2/
For those who haven’t considered it, the conflicts will include, for example, whether to employ a pharmacist or a pharmacy technician for a particular job or role; whether a particular activity or service should be reserved for or delivered by a particular group;
3/
“…the NHS tactic of poaching community pharmacy staff to work in general practices is absurd and having very damaging consequences for community pharmacies."
“Poaching” suggests it is done in a clandestine manner, ignoring the fact that staff will be actively applying and engaging with recruitment processes for other roles
2/
New internal Lloydspharmacy documents reveal how it manages the GPhC, and how the GPhC allows itself to be managed.
Thread /🧵
The documents say that the GPhC will continue to “support pharmacy” (as opposed to regulating it?) and “seek assurances” about how the pharmacy *is continuing to meet* the standards (as opposed to determining impartially *whether or not* its standards have been met).
2/
The GPhC will take a “more proportionate” (codeword, in respect of regulation, for “lazier”; signifies deregulation and poorer public protection) approach by phoning some pharmacies instead of visiting them.
The irony being that they’re discussing the outcome of a *consultation* in which the responses opposing the new regulatory powers were set aside, then saying don’t worry, any changes will be *consulted* on.
2/
Of course, this has become a feature of politics - pretending not to see the irony, sort-of-hoping that others won’t, but not really caring if they do. Nevertheless, embarrassing for those who do it.
3/
GPhC to acquire new duty to have regard to the principle of *minimising* the burdens on the businesses it is meant to regulate, when deciding rules for when pharmacists are responsible, and RP absence. #pharmacy
If an “expected benefit” is reduced labour costs, then the *minimum* burden on businesses to secure it could be “you don’t need a responsible pharmacist at all”.
2/
The “expected benefits” are not defined in law. Perhaps they’ve been communicated separately to the GPhC, or will be communicated once the legislation is in force. Were the intended benefits just too tendentious to draft into law?
3/
Mere “say no” campaigns, for example, place the responsibility solely on the pharmacist to say *no* to those who put them in that position in the first place.
2/
This is exactly what those who created the situation want, as focussing on *individual* responsibility deflects attention away from them, the root cause.
3/