To think Pharmacies shouldn't shut for lunch anymore

[MrsBrie]

Hi,

It just seems so old fashioned and unnecessary and I don't see any argument for it. Yes, everyone is entitled to a lunch break - of course, but why does the entire pharmacy need to close? Can't they stagger the staff lunch breaks, like everywhere else?

It's not like it's not an important place? What about the people who need their prescriptions and can only pick it up in that hour? I suspect that's a lot of people.

Also, with GPs now really encouraging people to see their pharmacists first, this just seems even more unjustified.

Assuming it's not just me who thinks this?...

Yes I would agree with this ^^

In addition, in small pharmacies they may only have one other member of staff dealing with the face to face customers. Makes more sense for them to take their lunch at the same time.

Most small pharmacies are independent ones. Even the chain ones may be a franchise run by one person, sole trader.

Pharmacies are in financial crisis due to the cost of drugs going up but being restricted by how much they get paid back by the govt for prescriptions. They are sometimes selling stuff at a loss.

They can’t afford to employ another pharmacist and there’s a massive shortage anyway. Same as a lot of the rest of the healthcare sector.

I'm pretty sure they'd have had a reason. Have you asked them?

This explains some of the issues caused by the community pharmacy framework contract. https://www.chemistanddruggist.co.uk/CD136418/Sector-in-crisis-Thousands-of-pharmacies-at-risk-of-closure-as-inflation-bites

Interesting, where I am the vast majority of pharmacy profit is made from selling stuff that has nothing to do with evidence-based healthcare and so requires no pharmacist input (other than to turn a blind eye to the guff that’s sold).

Altho loving the shock at the idea of healthcare workers not getting a lunch break….hahahahaahahahahahahahahahaashaha

Can the pharmacist not take his or her break on the premises?

Depends if their enough staff as they allowed to eat and go to the toilet...ex NHS member here who knows what it's like..we do need to use the toilet.. if just one pharmacist totally understand them closing for lunch

They shouldn’t have to. For employment purposes they legally have to have a break. Being on the premises isn’t good enough because they have to be available to check stuff, answer questions, etc. which they shouldn’t have to be doing on an unpaid lunch break. It’s also important they’re rested/have a break so they are less likely to make errors due to being overworked

If my boss told me I had to take my unpaid break on the premises and deal with stuff I wouldn’t be impressed. Oh hang on, I worked on a labour ward for 15 years, it’s one reason I left. Being treated like that.

normally People aren’t paid for their lunch break so would be quite difficult to dictate what they do with it or where they do.

I live in a country where pharmacies are open 7 days a week, some are open 24 hours, and most are open 12 hours daily, with no "closed for lunch" issues.

This.

If they’re working they aren’t on a break, how would them being on the premises enable a prescription to be made up and signed if they’re on a break?

example: my pharmacy is open 8-19h m to f and open Saturday 9-2. They always need a pharmacist on duty. Clearly my pharmacy has at least 2 pharmacists. Maybe your pharmacy has only 1. There is also a pharmacist shortage.

This is news to me.
I have never encountered a pharmacy that is closed for lunch. The one near us is always extremely busy and I think the pharmacist must be taking her breaks on the premises.

The ones near us are now all opening all day and not closing for lunch. This is becuse the one that did knew it lost a lot of business from workers on lunch break wanting their goods.

Is this still a thing then? I only know of one pharmacy in a ten mile radius to me that closes for lunch but none of the others do

Because there is only one pharmacist, and you'd be complaining if you were told to come back later because the pharmacist is on their lunch.

More than likely.

My DSis, a pharmacist, will try to quickly eat half a sandwich or rely on one of the assistants to bring her something. She doesn't take a lunch break. Not great but the nature of her work.

It's an hour, yabvu I'm sure you can fit your day around it if it's that important. I'm on daily prescriptions and I manage just fine to get my meds without expecting the pharmacy not to eat or drink all day

I don't agree that's the 'nature of her work' or at least it doesn't have to be. Decades of deliberate underfunding and mismanagement of healthcare in this country has resulted in a race to the bottom of employment conditions for healthcare workers and it's a disgrace. Your sister should be able to take a peacefu lunch break and rest. We want well-rested, calm pharmacists not stressed and overworked ones that then make mistakes and/or burn out young and leave the profession early.

One of the reasons for the shortage of community pharmacists too is that so many are leaving to work in primary care where the employment conditions are generally improved. A close relative did this and a number of his friends from uni have done the same.

Re the question about delivery being allowed when you can't hand out meds without a pharmacist. We hand the dispensed medication to the delivery driver with the Pharmacist there, same as we would hand out medication to the patient. Once it goes to the driver, it's no longer the Pharmacist responsibility, same as handing to the customer. It then becomes the driver/delivery companies responsibility to get the meds to the right place.

Some larger pharmacies do such as Asda or Boots but the person won't get their meds without the actual pharmacist.
you forget that many are only small businesses with sometimes only 2-3 members of staff including the actual pharmacist.

Absolutely this

To be fair, an awful lot of people don’t get lunch at ‘lunch time’.