i realise this is an old case but the principle of the error is pertinent to us all regardless of when it happened. I was really surpirsed at this legal ruling and well quite baffled as to why the pharmacy was asked to pay out such a huge amount of money making it seem equal in culpability to the dr. I don't know if there's more to this story but i figured the PJ would have reported if there was something else.
the prescription indicated a therapeutic dose of the drug. the increase is small enough that it could be attributed to worsening of symptoms- pharmacist doesn't have access to clinical records- not necessarily a mess up by the dr. I would be interested in hearing the view of other pharmacists about this.
She might receive nothing because she has already reached an out-of-court settlement for £1.5m with her doctor’s insurer, leaving Lloydspharmacy having to pay her less than she has already received.
That still implies apportioned blame and it would be very informative to know if the RPSGB concurred with the legal ruling and disciplined the pharmacist in question. If it didn't then it would be helpful if the PJ could raise this issue and ensure that the GPHC concurs with what is expected of pharmacists legally.
Well that depends on the case. If the dexamethasone had been dispensed at a different pharmacy, one which had no previous records for the patient, then there would not have been joint liability, from what i can see, as the whole case is built upon the fact that pharmacist had access to PMR and 'should have realised that the increase in dose was a mistake'.
However, the issue I was raising was whether the RPSGB, now GPHC, concurred/concurrs with this ruling.
Memory fading now, but I believe patient attended Uk Dr with just the label on meds supplied originally in US.
Thus, script may have been presented at pharmacy for first time and with wrong dose, ie no PMR record.
johnep
Interesting, I think we looked at this case briefly in my law and ethics training today, the lecturer said the pharmacist had been exonerated of any blame in this case as they had no way of knowing the dose was a mistake when it was inside therapeutic levels.
Reply With Quote
