This will be welcome news to those who have repeatedly highlighted the intense pressure over MUR targets. But does it give you greater confidence in the justice of previous cases in which no undue pressure was found and pharmacists have been disciplined for falsifying MURs?

And there are two further issues that pharmacists will no doubt feel have yet to be addressed. Firstly, that while the multiple was criticised by the regulator it suffered no formal sanction, as the pharmacist no doubt would have done if the finding had been reversed. The fitness-to-practise committee only expressed its "hope" that the multiple would "consider our comments with care".

And, secondly, that there is no known precedent for a case being brought against a pharmacist employer for inappropriate targets – this case came about only because the pharmacist herself was under investigation.

The GPhC has said that the revised premises standards, due to come into force next year, will put an onus on owners and superintendents to ensure that working environments are suitable – indeed, the standards say that staff should be "empowered to exercise their professional judgement in the interests of patients and the public".

However, it remains doubtful that pharmacists who believe they are under undue pressure will feel confident to bring a case on this basis – at least until someone sticks their head above the parapet and the outcome sets the precedent.

Jennifer Richardson, Editor [email protected], @CandDJennifer

It takes just one innocuous-looking envelope to fall through your letter box and that could be it – its contents could shred your reputation, stem your livelihood and slam the brakes on your career. In reality, though, having your fitness to practise called into question is not that simple. Worse, it could take many months, maybe years, for your case to be heard, while all the time the case is hanging over you like an executioner's axe – as we have found in the second part of our in-depth examination of the fitness-to-practise process. Going through a fitness-to-practise case is truly the stuff of nightmares for any pharmacist, as one has memorably and movingly described for C+D. So imagine going through that ordeal while being sure of your innocence, the case simply a product of shoddy investigation by the regulator – as happened to one unfortunate pharmacist in a case heard this summer. No wonder his representative wants "knuckles to be rapped". But it's very much a tale of two halves for the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) this week, as we also reveal a case in which the regulator has done what C+D readers have long been clamouring for – slamming a multiple for "inappropriate" pressure to meet MUR targets and throwing out the case against the pharmacist under investigation.
	There is welcome news for those who have repeatedly highlighted the intense pressure over MUR targets – but two issues remain