Editorial
Welcome to the March edition of i2P – Information to Pharmacists.
You may have noiticed if you receive i2P by email, that we have simplified our mail out presentation.
This was because the code in our earlier version appeared to be too unstable to maintain, hence the simpler presentation.
Columns
Rollo Manning: Pharma-Goss
John Dunlop: Inside NZ
Loretta Marron BSc: Health Watch
Barry Urquhart: Marketing Focus
Harvey Mackay: Strategic Thinking
Mark Neuenschwander: I`ve been thinking about...Recent Comments
Past Editions
Volume 1 Number 1
Volume 1 Number 2
Volume 1 Number 3
Volume 1 Number 4
Volume 1 Number 5
Volume 1 Number 6
Volume 1 Number 7
Volume 2 Number 1
Volume 2 Number 2
Pharma News
Hospital News
Health Politics
Pat Gallagher: Health Informatics - The State of the Nation
Peter Sayers: The Three-Ring Circus
Dr David More: e-Health IdentifiersEPublications
UK Dispensing Errors Under Review
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version | Staff Writer |
Editing and Researching news and stories about global and local Pharmacy Issues | |
The recent furore in the UK over pharmacist Elizabeth Lee receiving a conviction for a criminal offence and subsequently a suspended jail sentence, has really lit a fire under the imbalances that exist when a pharmacy dispensing error is made.
The dispensing pharmacist or the supervising pharmacist under current UK legislation, has been made to bear the brunt of legal responsibility, with pharmacy owners escaping with little pain.
According to an article in PJ Online "In many cases, all that the employer needs to establish is that he had standard operating procedures in place and that the employee or locum had simply not complied with them. In these cases, the employer can walk away leaving the employee or locum to face the, often damaging, consequences".
There is now a rush in the UK to have current legislation amended to reflect a more proportionate responsibility for all parties involved.
More on this story in PJ Online.
Let’s not make similar mistakes over supervision as were made over errors
The Leading article entitled “Where are the multiples?” (PJ, 30 May 2009, p630) demonstrated that sometimes getting all interested parties in pharmacy to agree to one message and to follow in one direction is harder than it sounds.
Although no one wants things to go wrong in the pharmacy, it is nevertheless a fact of life that if it does, then it is usually to the employers’ advantage if the employee or locum rather than the employer suffers the consequences.
These days much of pharmacy is controlled by big money and large institutions, and serious incidents that can be attributed to the erroneous actions of an individual pharmacist are much easier to manage at board level and in terms of public relations, particularly if the employer is under scrutiny from large investors or a primary care organisation.
One needs only to study the recent prosecutions for dispensing errors under the 1968 Medicines Act to see the trends that have emerged since the late 1990s.
In many cases, all that the employer needs to establish is that he had standard operating procedures in place and that the employee or locum had simply not complied with them. In these cases, the employer can walk away leaving the employee or locum to face the, often damaging, consequences.
Read more at this link
In Australia, and almost certainly in New Zealand, there are many factors under the control of the employer that impact on pharmacist dispensers and supervisors.
For example, a congested workspace and a limited ability to use a scanner because of continuous computer usage by technicians, can lead to a stressful situation (in most cases lasting no longer than minutes), where an error can occur.
Also, because indemnity insurance for employess is offered through Guild Insurance (an organisation where employers can have an influence) there is an uneasy feeling that in a real crunch, the employee may be left high and dry on some technicality.
Some employees are now seeking an alternative insurer because of this perceived problem, although no glaring examples have occurred in recent times.
Employees are told by Pharmacy Boards to generate a complaint so thay can act on the complaint and evidence supplied.
Many employee pharmacists are reluctant to make a complaint in the belief that it will eventually be worked out as to who made the complaint and that they would be blacklisted with other employers.
Pharmacy Boards function to protect the general public by ensuring all regulations concerning pharmacists and pharmacies are adhered to.
Not being proactive in areas of workflow gives a free pass to employers, should a dispensing error occur.
Dr Andrew Byrne & Associates: Fatal torsade tachycardia due to methadone either rare or non-existent finds Norwegian study
Neil Retallick: A time of pivotal change will require new ways of thinking about community pharmacy
Neil Johnston: Dispensing errors and criminality
Post new comment