The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 278 No 7452 p584-585
19 May 2007

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

PDF 50K, Acrobat Reader

• White paper (5)
• Dispensing errors
• Insect bites and stings
• Community contract
• Locum pharmacy
• Pseudoephedrine
• The Journal (2)

Letters to the Editor

Dispensing errors

Discretion and judgement must be exercised

From Professor J. Wingfield, FRPharmS

As a sometimes critical commentator on the exercise of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s disciplinary powers, I welcome the development of transparent indicators as to when complaints about “one-off” dispensing errors should be referred to the Infringements (soon to be Investigating) Committee (PJ, 14 April, p435). By and large these criteria seem to be rational, realistic and calculated to diminish well-founded fears of retribution for “honest mistakes”.

I do question, however, the objective basis for the final criterion for referral: “relevant history within the previous three years”. Is this period based on empirical research data that suggests only blameworthy pharmacists make more than one error in three years? If so can we know where this was published? Or was this period arbitrarily chosen? In any event, discretion and judgement must be exercised in determining what is relevant.

Moreover, the first criterion makes a subjective (and political) judgement that the outcome of an error is necessarily related to the culpability that should attach to it. I do not suggest how these “judgement calls” can be avoided; I merely seek to highlight them.

Joy Wingfield
Professor of Pharmacy Law and Ethics
Nottingham School of Pharmacy,
University of Nottingham

Send your letter to The Editor

Previous Topic (White Paper)
Next Topic (Insect bites and stings)