The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 277 No 7421 p424
7 October 2006

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

· The profession
· Messaging service
· Prescribing of statins
· NHS
· The Society
· Pfizer products (5)
· Statutory Committee (2)

Letters to the Editor

Statutory Committee

Was pharmacist really unfit to practise?

From Mr M. Randerson, MRPharmS

I write regarding the Statutory Committee ruling reported in “Reprimand follows 20-fold dosage error” (PJ, 16 September, p353). The consequence of such an error is clearly extremely serious in terms of patient safety; however what Richard Woodroffe appears to have made is a basic error in accuracy checking, ie, failing to identify a case of right label, wrong product. I doubt that any pharmacist (or technician) has not made errors in accuracy checking and suggest that if, as the Statutory Committee stated, Mr Woodroffe has made a single error in 30 years he should be regarded as having an exceptionally good record of accurate practice overall.

The committee concluded that “the error did amount to such misconduct as to render Mr Woodroffe unfit to be on the Register”. Given the likelihood of any “competent” pharmacist making a single accuracy checking error over a similar time, I would suggest that if judged by the the same standard, the vast majority of the profession would equally be regarded as unfit to practise. Perhaps the committee needs to consider such cases in the context of the true frequency and nature of dispensing errors in the real world and review the criteria by which it judges pharmacists as fit, or otherwise, to practise.

Mark Randerson
Crossgates, North Yorkshire

The committee should have awarded a medal

From Mr P. D. Burgess, MRPharmS

May I suggest that there could be an appraisal of the functioning of the Statutory Committee? It is the reporting of the error and subsequent reprimand (PJ, 16 September, p353) that prompts me to ask this.

The committee decided that one error of supplying the wrong strength of tablet was sufficient to render Richard Woodroffe unfit to be on the Register but since it was a single error in 30 years of practice they decided on a reprimand. In my opinion the committee should be awarding a medal.

I do not think many pharmacists reading this Statutory Committee report will now want to be open or want to share their errors so they can be analysed to help prevent a recurrence.

Paul Burgess
Auckland, New Zealand

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (Pfizer products)