Home > PJ (current issue) > Letters | Search

PJ Online homeThe Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 277 No 7408 p48
8 July 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 30K, Acrobat Reader

Letters

· Control of entry
· Controlled drugs
· Medicines use review
· Homoeopathy


Letters to the Editor

Medicines use review

A travesty?

From “Concerned Pharmacist”

Last year we were told that a medicines use review should take no longer than 10 minutes, a target that I often fail to achieve. A recent company newsletter from Lloydspharmacy stated: “Questions like ‘are you having problems with opening child-resistant containers’ opens up an easy conversation that can be documented and counted as an MUR.”

Am I the only pharmacist who feels uneasy with classifying such normal “best practice” as an MUR? At best this is a travesty of an MUR’s original purpose and at worst might be considered to be a fraudulent claim for NHS fees.

Concerned Pharmacist
298/1

 

ANDY MURDOCK, pharmacy director, Lloydspharmacy, replies:

After reviewing the newsletter mentioned I think that there is a slight misunderstanding of the interpretation. A recent audit that we have undertaken has highlighted several barriers pharmacists and staff have when undertaking MURs. One of these is the engagement with potential MUR patients to introduce and explain the service. As part of our ongoing attempts to help our pharmacists and staff overcome these barriers we identify ideas from “best” performing pharmacies and the idea mentioned would be no more than an “ice breaker” to initiate a conversation to help assess whether or not the particular patient would benefit from an MUR. We have issued much more detailed and significant guidance around specific conditions that does not trivialise or play down the importance we attach to providing a proper and appropriate MUR service.

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Controlled drugs)
Next Topic (Homoeopathy)

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal