The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 276 No 7402 p622-623
27 May 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

· Non-medical prescribing (2)
· Medicines management
· Roche Diagnostics
· Electronic prescribing (2)
· Pharmaceutical Press
· Education (3)
· Council election (4)
· Onlooker (2)

Letters to the Editor

Electronic prescribing

Which barcode system is best?

From Mr R. Gartside, FRPharmS

The Australians are even better than the Americans in reducing dispensing errors (PJ, 20 May, p590). There is no need in Australia to read and compare National Drug Code numbers on original packs and the dispensary labels to be applied to them. And, with respect, there is little if any gain in safety because of inescapable human errors in reading and comparing two complex numbers.

It is a condition of professional liability insurance in Australia (and also a legal requirement in some states) that the computer in a community pharmacy is equipped with a barcode reader and software to check that the barcode on the box about to be labelled tallies with the label produced.

It is simple, straightforward and safe, and could make the training I am presently giving to accredited checking technicians partly redundant.

Here in the UK, we are about to install barcode readers to read codes on electronic prescriptions. It is not too late to adopt this Australian measure in addition, although this is, perhaps, unlikely. I submitted, at its request, a full report to the Department of Health two years ago and was thanked for my trouble but nothing has resulted.

Bob Gartside
Llanberis, Gwynedd

Robotic pharmacists

From Mrs A. Morant, MRPharmS

The electronic prescription service poses a major accountability issue. GPs print existing paper prescriptions with a unique barcode. The barcode can then be scanned to retrieve the prescription details electronically in a pharmacy connected to the EPS. This, it is claimed, will improve accuracy and safety because prescription information will only be typed in once. Unfortunately, although it is obvious that rekeying saves time, it also eliminates that vital “pause for thought”, and so reduces dispensing to a mechanical process.

It is not unknown to have to query a prescription. For example, what if the change in strength was not intentional? And, if it is missed, who is responsible? Is it the prescriber (or receptionist) who made the error, or the pharmacist, who will probably have difficulty in getting a response to any query? The receptionist will probably say the computer never makes a mistake.

If the purpose of this scheme is to reduce the pharmacist to a dispensing automaton, will its use absolve the pharmacist from responsibility for prescription errors because, after all, it is just an example of remote supervision? But by whom?

Unfortunately, the patient will suffer and, as usual, it will be the unfortunate pharmacist in the firing line. The Government will then realise that EPS was not such a good idea after all — just like the debacle of the centralised supply of oxygen.

Annette Morant
Edgware, Middlesex

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Roche Diagnostics)
Next Topic (Pharmaceutical Press)