The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 272 No 7301 p686
29 May 2004

Society summary

Meeting calls for clear dosage on all prescriptions

All prescriptions for medicines should carry clear and complete dosage instructions, the branch representatives' meeting declared.

Tony Pugh (Brighton) moved “that all prescriptions for oral medicines should carry complete dosage instructions”. He said that the important point was patient safety. The branch wanted complete instructions to ensure that, with counselling, the public could understand the correct use of their medicines.

Allen Asher (East Metropolitan), seconding, said that with more potent medicines the need for proper labelling was greater than ever. There was no excuse for prescribers’ computer systems not producing prescriptions with complete and accurate labelling information.

Asked why the motion specifically referred to oral medicines, Dr Pugh said that the question of other routes of administration had been raised at the branch but they had thought a start should be made with oral medicines.

Doreen Novak (West Metropolitan) proposed amending the motion to remove the word “oral”. The amendment was seconded.

Keith Williams (Bolton) said that he could live with “oral”, but moving to “all prescriptions” was asking for trouble. His wife was a specialist nurse in diabetes. Her pet hate was insulin prescriptions with directions such as “24 units to be given in the morning and 12 units in the evening.” Most of her patients were trained to adjust their insulin dosage.

Zafar Khan (West Metropolitan) said it was important to explain the dosage of insulin. There were occasions when a diabetes patient might be in a coma, and whoever was taking care of him or her would need the dosage explained.

The amendment was carried.

John Carr (South Staffordshire) suggested replacing the word “complete” with “clear”. That might meet the needs of the original proposers and some of those who may have doubts about the wording as it stood.

Mr Asher suggested that “clear and appropriate” might be appropriate.

Gordon Ross (Nottingham) proposed the words “clear and complete”.

The proposal was seconded and carried.

Mr Carr said that he would have to oppose the motion if it left out the word “oral”.

Elly Wakeling (Bradford) said that without the word “oral” the motion now covered important topical products such as steroid creams. She added that the full dosage was appropriate for variable dose items such as insulin and warfarin. It was up to the pharmacist to make a professional decision as to how to ensure that the patient understood the instructions.

Sue Carter (Worthing and West Sussex) said that the proposal was not about introducing legislation but about winning hearts and minds and changing professional practice.

Stuart Eason (South Staffordshire) thought the motion was now going too far. Did a prescription for Salactol paint or Canesten One or Pripsen granules need all the instructions on it, when the package included full directions?

Summing up, Dr Pugh said that prescribers had a duty to give the right instructions.