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?...

Holidays will be easier to get cover for than lunchtimes. Because a locum is more likely to want a bloc of a week or two of work than an hour in the middle of the day. In terms of being ill, maybe he just never is!

They use a locum, don't they?

The law needs to change so that once a pharmacist has made up the prescription, the other staff can just hand it over. Theres no benefit to the pharmacist actually being on site - they don't come to the till and physically go through the prescription with you before handing it over. So Jane on the till can just as easily pass me the bag during lunch as after it!
The same with accepting prescriptions - if you can post a script through the letterbox of a closed pharmacy, it's totally illogical that you can't hand it over to a member of staff between 1-2!

Also people might need to pop in on their lunch break to get non prescription medicine or a packet of tights or something. Madness to close when lots of workers are on lunch.

We are becoming used to a drop in customer service standards. I'm surprised Boots is still going tbh - large branches aside, many of the small ones are grotty and badly stocked. It's such a shame because Boots used to be amazing.

The law needs to change so that once a pharmacist has made up the prescription, the other staff can just hand it over. Theres no benefit to the pharmacist actually being on site - they don't come to the till and physically go through the prescription with you before handing it over

But theoretically they must if someone has a question about it. Maybe they remember they are taking OTC supplements and want to check it’s okay to take together, whether they need to take with food or timing, or whatnot. Yes, there are other ways for them to get that info but part of the license of a pharmacy is making sure a registered pharmacist is on site when things are dispensed in case (as I understand it). I’m not a pharmacist, another area of health but know a few colleagues married to pharmacists and this is what I recall anyway.

I guess if someone has a question, the onus is on them to collect when the pharmacist is there.

Out of interest, why do you need a highly trained and expensive pharmacist to take boxes off a shelf in line with the prescription and put them in a bag? Obviously it needs to be done accurately, but why do you need pharmacy qualifications?

It's not like It's a Wonderful Life when he's making the tablets, it's really only order picking? Or isn't it?

You don’t, that’s often done by unqualified pharmacy assistants where I am. Pharmacists just have to initial as checked. The role of the pharmacist is if someone comes in and asks about whether there is a medicine for their rash, or their kids conjunctivitis or what not, and to answer any patients questions on the medicines they have been prescribed.

In the 1980s I had a Saturday job in a small chemist at the local shops. The pharmacist would go for lunch, and we would stay open, but people would scream blue murder if they couldn't buy cough mixture and paracetamol in that hour. Much easier on the staff to close for an hour.

Interesting point.
I knew someone who was a pharmacist and he said nowadays it's quite boring compared to the Victorian era when lotions and potions were mixed and made up on the premises.

I found a box of ''Opiate Confection'' online - These were made by a well known London chemist in the 19th Century.

There was a wonderful Pharmacy in Bristol in Clifton late last Century {20th } ''Baldwins'' that was basically untouched since Georgian times.
It was dark and fascinating with rows and rows of glittering coloured green, blue and clear bottles on the shelves, with gold labels and a beautiful painted ceiling {decorative}

When we went back recently it was an estate agents.. completely stripped of it's wonderful interior.

If there is only one pharmacist, when are they supposed to have their break?

@LadyBird1973

The law needs to change so that once a pharmacist has made up the prescription, the other staff can just hand it over

Exactly, if the drugs can be given to an unqualified delivery driver to hand over to the patient from the van, they should be able to be handed over the counter by counter staff. Once they've been checked and signed off by the pharmacist, it doesn't matter "who" actually hands them over to the patient. It's nonsense that a delivery driver can hand over but a counter assistant can't!

So how does the patient do that when they get their drugs delivered by a van driver, or through the post from an online pharmacy?? The postman isn't a pharmacist, nor is the delivery driver. They'd have to phone the pharmacy and/or GP surgery with any queries. So, likewise, if they were allowed to pick up meds from a pharmacy counter and there was no pharmacist present, they could just phone up later when s/he was in. I just don't get the problem at all. When the law was changed to allow for deliveries, it should have been changed to remove the need for the pharmacist to be present for counter handovers. I presume it was just an oversight from the rule/law makers!

Pharmacists are also trained to be able to spot when doctors have made a mistake and query e.g. dosage, to know what drugs can’t be taken alongside other things, including over the counter medications, to give advice on minor ailments and more.

I don’t really see why this is causing such an issue. If a business deems itself unable or unaffordable to open at lunch that’s their perogative. It doesn’t affect me when I’ve got an urgent prescription because the GP is also shut at that time so I’m not trying to use the pharmacy at lunch. I’m also generally off work so not in a deadline. It doesn’t affect me with repeat prescriptions because there are so many options these days- online, delivery, 24 hour pharmacies, dispensing doctor, a bit of planning and it’s no issue. If I’m very rural my doctor can dispense the item without pharmacy involvement. I’m struggling to see what the issue actually is here? If I want sandwiches or tights there are plenty of other shops and options. I get the impression that people argue for things simply because they may want the option to use them on a rare occasion once a year but that’s not viable for a business model! Our small local boots has one pharmacist and usually 2 other staff in the shop. They’re obviously not going to be able to open at lunch and there’s clearly not enough business to employ more staff. And they’d be acting illegally to not give the staff a break and having to stay on the premises in case you’re needed isn’t a break

Surely that's part of the checking/signing off process, rather than the picking off the shelves process?

The pharmacist at our local boots took early retirement just before Christmas and they’ve not been able to replace her so it’s been floating cover since. They called me a couple of Fridays ago because they know i usually pick up my mum’s meds on a Saturday - they hadn’t been able to get someone for the Saturday shift so weren’t sure if they’d be able to open at all! The situation in community pharmacy is dire - big recruitment issues, supply problems, ever increasing workloads as they’re now the first point of contact for a lot of minor ailments like UTIs etc.

I think it’s rather more complex. There is no ‘change in the law’ to allow deliveries. Your representative has always been able to collect a prescription for you and that is what the delivery driver is doing. Generally pharmacies only deliver to select patients who struggle to attend as it’s an inferior system. And have you tried trying to contact an online pharmacy? It’s near impossible and ime they take very little responsibility for fixing any problems!

A previous poster said that there had been a change in the law/rule to allow for deliveries.

@BungleandGeorge (love the name btw - took me right back that did), not all of us live in places with lots of shopping options on our doorsteps. My town is small - it has one pharmacy.
Yes, we can survive without buying tights or nappies during that hour , but it's madness for shops who need trade to survive, to deliberately cut themselves out of lunchtime trade.

What if they can't find staff willing to work just an hour or two each day to cover?

They obviously aren't losing enough money for it to be of concern to the companies since multiple pharmacy groups close at lunch time. So I don't know why it should be of concern to the consumer.

@taxguru I don't mean get in staff just for the one or two hours, I mean stagger staff lunch breaks so the whole shop doesn't need to close.

@YouAndMeAndThem I'm not convinced that all pharmacies who close are making enough money to survive. The Boots in my nearest bigger town started closing at lunch for a couple of hours. And when it is open, it's poorly stocked, grubby looking make up counters. I think they just have lost trade to the town's other chemists who are open. It's like the owners of Boots want to run it into the ground - I don't pretend to understand the thought process.

I guess they have a captive market in some places with few pharmacies re people needing g to get their medication but if it's the case that the nhs only pays £1 plus the cost of the medicine, I can't fathom why a business would want to lose sales on all the other things that people buy from shops during their lunch hours. Once people get into the habit of buying what Boots sells, from other shops, they won't go back - the new habit has been formed.

Just seems madness to me to alienate customers when physical shops are expensive to run and need people to shop in them. It's not like Boots even has a good websire for online.

I think a lot of decisions that seem like commercially madness stem from inability to get staff.

Years ago they kept the shop open and the staff would explain to customers what could and couldn't be done while the pharmacist wasn't there for lunch. People used to accept it but nowadays the staff would probably get abuse for that so they close the shop.
Some pharmacists used to stay on the premises in lunch breaks so they could get some things done too but probably pharmacists want a lunch break now.

They might get more work if they stayed open in lunchbreaks but it probably wouldn't be enough to cover the extra costs of staying open. Plus staff will get abuse for not being able to sell some things.