| · Methadone
· Electronic prescribing
· Drug nomemclature
· Community pharmacy
· Cod liver oil
Letters to the Editor
|
Community pharmacy
A question of accountability
From Mr R. J. Woodhouse, MRPharmS
The PJ of 28 February (p261) contains a Law
and Ethics Bulletin that
significantly alters the way community pharmacy is practised.
The bulletin, which states that the pharmacist on duty when a dispensed
medicine is collected is responsible for the accuracy of the dispensing
even when this has been supervised by another pharmacist on another day,
outlaws the current practice of putting dispensed and checked items into
bags that are then labelled with the patient’s name and address
and sealed to await collection. The dispensed items must now be left
for a further final check by the pharmacist on duty at the time of collection,
presumably along with the stock containers of items not supplied in their
original packs. Evidently, the fact that another pharmacist has already
checked the dispensing process is now insufficient.
In view of the practical implications of this divergence from established
practice (eg, stock holdings, dispensary space and pharmacist’s
time), could we have a full account of the consultation, discussion and
debate which must have taken place before this announcement was made?
Roger Woodhouse
Bath
| |
LYNSEY BALMER, pharmacist adviser, fitness to practise and legal
affairs directorate, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, states:
I would
advise that
the guidance given in the Law and Ethics Bulletin reflects the guidance
that the Society’s advisory service has always given. This is based
on the fact that Section 52 of the Medicines Act 1968 refers to “supply” not “dispensing”.
The Law and Ethics Bulletin was drafted at the request of the Society’s
Infringements Committee, following a case in which a patient received both his
own correctly dispensed medicines and another patient’s medicines. The
two patients’ prescribed items were labelled and bagged with one of the
patient’s names. The locum pharmacist who supplied the dispensed items
to the patient was not the pharmacist who checked the assembled products.
No additional check was performed at the time of supply, because the locum
pharmacist
stated that he was not aware that he had any professional accountability
for a prescription that was already assembled in a sealed bag awaiting collection.
Had this pharmacist checked that the names on both prescriptions matched
the
name on the bag, he would have been alerted to the error.
The intention of the Law and Ethics Bulletin was to remind pharmacists
that, depending on the facts of the case, they may not be entirely absolved
of any
professional or legal accountability because they were not the pharmacist
in charge at the time the dispensed items were assembled. Pharmacists would
be expected
to take the necessary steps to satisfy themselves of the accuracy of any
medicines supplied to the patient when they are in charge. This, therefore
highlights the
need for robust systems to be in place and an identifiable pharmacist to
be accountable for each stage of the dispensing process. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal