RP Interpretations "unlawful"
So Lloyds Pharmacy and Bupa have already have their interpretations of the RP regulations brought into question by the PDA and RPSGB (PJ Online article below)
PDA challenge to RP interpretation
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 that 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. It's even more interesting when you link to the recent European Court Ruling (Article below)
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?
If you have any other examples of practices that don't conform with either the letter or spirit of the new regulations please let me know so i can pass then on to your fellow pharmacists.
|
|
Sincerely,
Shaun Hockey B Pharm(Hons) MRPharms
PL-UK Recruitment Ltd
|
