UK Dispensing Errors Under Review

• Printer-friendly version
• Send to friend
• PDF version
• Share

	Staff Writer articles by this author...
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.

open this article full screen

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.