Role of an Accredited Checking Technician

[NightzWorld]

Hi there!

Please can someone tell me the exact role of an ACT? For example, when a prescription comes into the pharmacy what part does the ACT plan and what does the pharmacist do? Can the pharmacist simply check the script, print the labels out and get the stock and then leave the rest for the ACT, or maybe just get away with checking the script and leave the rest to the ACT, etc? Im not 100% sure so if anyone can clear this up for me I would be very grateful,

Thanks

[Defblade]

The clue's in the name. They are accredited to check the dispensing work of other dispensers (never their own). The pharmacist must still as a minimum undertake a clinical check of each script; as this is impossible to do without accessing the PMR I suspect they may as well do the labels while they're there.

However, ACTs have no legal status as such in any of the legislation (including upcoming AFAIK, stand to be corrected) and so the pharmacist is still ultimately responsible for what goes out (recent Lloyds case shows this may be changing in case law; currently only the pharmacist can be struck off tho. This may/will change with the GPhC registering techs).

Hence many pharmacists and especially locums are very uncomfortable about working with them (to the point of refusal).

The training emphasises the pharmacist's responsabilty and choice whether or not to allow a tech to work as an ACT (I know this from taking my dispenser through the NVQ) and makes it clear the tech must accept that choice (and that it's not necessarily a reflection upon their skills)... however, rumour has it that this particular part of the course hasn't "taken" in every case

[NightzWorld]

Thanks very much for your reply.
So if say the pharmacist prints the labels from the PMR and then leaves the ACT to get stock and stick and check labels, if the label is printed out wrong by the pharmacist then can the ACT amend the label without notifying the pharmacist or would any errors need to be pointed out to the pharmacist who would then go into the PMR to reprint the labels?

[cornish girl]

Where I work as technician but not ACT the pharmacist checks scripts from surgery, one dispenser labels and a second dispenses before the ACT checks and bags. The only contact the ACT has is in the final checking process, she doesnt label or amend anything.

[Defblade]

leaves the ACT to get stock and stick and check labels,

As I said, an ACT cannot check their own work. The system is as cornishgirl has said - other dispensers assemble the item, the ACT can only deal with it once picked packed and labbelled ready to go.

Generally, any error found should trigger a bump back to the pharmacist.

[Defblade]

the pharmacist checks scripts from surgery, one dispenser labels

How are the scripts checked? I've not been able to come up with a better system than actually doing the labels, as the PMR's interaction database saves me having to read through Stockley for every drug on the patient's record vs the new script; and by the time you're at that stage of the PMR process, you may as well press print. But I'd be interested to find a system which avoided this yet still performed a full clinical check.

[bobbin]

How are the scripts checked? I've not been able to come up with a better system than actually doing the labels, as the PMR's interaction database saves me having to read through Stockley for every drug on the patient's record vs the new script; and by the time you're at that stage of the PMR process, you may as well press print. But I'd be interested to find a system which avoided this yet still performed a full clinical check.

Some PMR systems provide the option to print out interactions during the labelling process. You can ask the labeller to print out all of the interactions.........or alternatively to only print the interactions for new medications. You can also tell the labeller to alert you to any dosage changes, new items etc. If the labeller is an experienced technician it shouldn't be a problem............but IMO inexperienced staff generally can't be relied upon to do it properly.

Bobbin

[Defblade]

Some PMR systems provide the option to print out interactions during the labelling process. You can ask the labeller to print out all of the interactions.........or alternatively to only print the interactions for new medications. You can also tell the labeller to alert you to any dosage changes, new items etc. If the labeller is an experienced technician it shouldn't be a problem............but IMO inexperienced staff generally can't be relied upon to do it properly.

Bobbin

Hmmmm, I used interactions as the most time consuming part of the job if you had to do it manually, but a review of the PMR is still essential to a clinical check (eg "are they expecting this dose change?" or "hm, they haven't had this for the last 3 years and they one they've had every month since is missing - someone pressed the wrong key?" etc) so you're going to be sat/stood in front of the computer again anyway...

[bobbin]

Hmmmm, I used interactions as the most time consuming part of the job if you had to do it manually, but a review of the PMR is still essential to a clinical check (eg "are they expecting this dose change?" or "hm, they haven't had this for the last 3 years and they one they've had every month since is missing - someone pressed the wrong key?" etc) so you're going to be sat/stood in front of the computer again anyway...

Although I do agree with you, labelling every prescription yourself just isn't possible in many pharmacies. If, in a busy pharmacy, every script was to be labelled by a pharmacist and all of the accuracy checking was performed by pharmacists, extra pharmacists would need to be employed........and the chance of that happening is pretty low! It is very unusual for pharmacy chains to employ pharmacists to perform jobs which (in their opinion) can be done by technicians.

Bobbin

[Defblade]

Although I do agree with you, labelling every prescription yourself just isn't possible in many pharmacies. If, in a busy pharmacy, every script was to be labelled by a pharmacist and all of the accuracy checking was performed by pharmacists, extra pharmacists would need to be employed........and the chance of that happening is pretty low! It is very unusual for pharmacy chains to employ pharmacists to perform jobs which (in their opinion) can be done by technicians.

I am of course aware of this (years of locumming....) and hence the cheap fudge of ACTs.... BUT if some pharmacists are effictively going to skip any sort of clinical check (beyond interactions and labels) in the name of script numbers, then they are going to do us all out of a profession.