|
I have just been reading Lynn Truss's book on punctuation ‘Eats, shoots and leaves’. Correct punctuation is vital if misunderstandings are to be avoided. For this reason it reminded me of pharmaceutical labelling, and how bad that can be.
I used to think that “Keep out of the reach of children” was
just good advice, until I had a couple of kids and realised they could
be quite fun. Surely, “Keep medicines, or this medicine, or something(!)
out of the reach of children” is the correct expression.
Now it is easy to blame software. A few keystrokes and the process of
label production is automated and control is relinquished. This may be
preferable to those handwritten labels we once had to write, and it does
provide a degree of standardisation. But sometimes I wonder whether the
standard of labelling is yet another reason pharmacy has such a poor
image.
One skill I was taught at university in the late 1960s was how to wrap
a medicine bottle in white demi paper, with the seam exactly down the
front, and finally sealed with red wax. I never used that skill, except
to wrap that special present, but it is a link to an age when pharmacists
realised that presentation is so important. Humans make judgements based
on something’s visual appearance out of all proportion to its true
importance. Perhaps a bit of psychology should be crammed into that fourth
year too.
Pharmacists are not entirely to blame for poor presentation, since the
decision often has to be made as to where to stick the label on a pack
already covered in manufacturer’s small print, bar codes, expiry
dates, etc. Why do so many manufacturers not leave enough label space
on product packs, knowing full well that a dispensing label will be applied?
On original packs appropriate warnings may already exist and yet a computer
inevitably generates a label with the same warnings appropriate for that
drug. So, we have either duplication, which could, arguably, be message
reinforcement, or more likely, the dispensing label obliterates some
of the appropriate wording already on the pack. The net result may meet
legal requirements, but professional looking? It certainly is not.
Equally bad is the outsized label, obviously designed big enough to accept
every additional warning that may ever be required, but it just does
not fit on a 32ml tablet bottle. So, whatever you do it just looks a
mess. Is this an appropriate image for a profession that wants to be
taken seriously? I think not.
My car’s MOT test certificate is now better presented than most
dispensed medicines. It comes in a neat plastic wallet, highlighting
the date when the next test is due. My most recent MOT test took less
than half an hour and cost over £40. This recommended cost is determined
by a government department, so, in relative terms, that shows exactly
what our masters really think we are worth, despite all the lip-service.
Decisions made during dispensing and MOT testing can both have life or
death consequences, so it could be argued they are comparable. But is
this what you expect after spending four years studying pharmacy at university?
Improving pharmacy’s image is well overdue.
— Contributed
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal