The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 274 No 7338 p225
26 February 2005

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

ETP and electronic signatures widely accepted

Plans to allow advanced electronic signatures (PJ, 7 August 2004, p176), without which the introduction of electronic prescribing and prescription transfer would be pointless, have met with little opposition. Only two of 91 responses (PDF 35K) to a consultation by the Department of Health opposed the proposals.

Benefits that respondents expect to come from electronic prescribing include greater patient safety and convenience, and better use of doctors’ and pharmacists’ time. Advantages in clinical audit and the prevention of fraud are also expected.

But some respondents were concerned about the extent to which electronic signatures would be used. Both the Company Chemists Association and the National Pharmaceutical Association considered that all prescribers, including pharmacists, should be able to use advanced electronic signatures to issue prescriptions.

Some respondents were worried that the security of electronic signatures would be weakened if prescribers who work at more than one location have to register more than one signature. The Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK said that there should be a regulator with power to revoke electronic signatures, and other organisations were concerned that the system should ensure that prescriptions that had been signed before an electronic signature was revoked for any reason should continue to be valid.

Many respondents were concerned about the cost of hardware and software that would be needed to enable the use of electronic signatures for prescribing and that this cost should be met in full by the NHS. This was because patient demand to have prescriptions dispensed at a pharmacy of their choosing would force all pharmacies to be able to handle electronic prescriptions.

One respondent, Stephen Mason, a barrister who has written about electronic prescriptions and law, had his detailed objections to electronic signatures, based on cost and security, highlighted in the response report.