In Views

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

By P3pharmacy editor Arthur Walsh

Here at P3pharmacy we want all our readers to do well. We don’t like singling out any one business for criticism, and in these pressured times it feels especially uncomfortable when the target is an independent chain with no access to international shareholder funds. 

But when a company racks up (alleged) failure after (alleged) failure, it can risk contaminating the whole sector’s standing with the public. It happened with LloydsPharmacy as it grew addicted to temporary closures in the chaotic years preceding its break-up, and I worry similar dangers now face another, rather smaller chain.

Let’s consider a few recent stories in which this business has been implicated. In July, one of its branches failed a GPhC inspection after evidence suggested prescriptions were being handed to patients without a responsible pharmacist present. This wasn’t a first offence for the company; it had received an almost identical warning from the regulator in April 2024.  

The chain – perhaps by now you know which one I mean – was also accused earlier this year of leaving locum pharmacists in the dark over when they would receive their long-overdue payments. One locum told us in February that their October invoice was still outstanding.

As with Lloyds, the most serious reports have concerned closures. One branch managed to avoid being struck off the pharmaceutical list despite only giving out medicines to patients on five trading days over a six-month period. 

And there have been several accounts in local newspapers across England of branches being shuttered by bailiffs or repeatedly failing to open for unexplained reasons, causing patients much anxiety. A councillor in Devon said the company had “broken multiple promises,” and I suspect he’s not the only one who feels that way. 

At best, this all adds up to an embattled business trying and failing to weather the same headwinds as every pharmacy. At worst, it may point to an abdication of its responsibility to patients. Either way, it is not a good look. 

The GPhC – often accused of going guns blazing after individual pharmacists and treating business owners with kid gloves – may have questions to answer too. Does it have an opinion on the company’s service levels?

The company no doubt has its own side of the story. Perhaps there is serious work underway to address all of the issues I’ve raised. Or maybe the truth is more complex than it might appear at first glance, as can sometimes be the case.

Unfortunately, we can’t be certain of that. Any time we have put these claims to (drum roll) Jhoots and given it the chance to respond we have been met with silence.

Why might that be?