Sorry that bit was meant to read... Really if I were to make a dispensing error and being sued for it (along with the pharmacist obviously) would I really be coming out with no consequences and the pharmacist takes all the flack? Is the law really there to protect me as an ACT or will a crafty lawyer find a flaw and do me for another reason/using other laws? Somehow I don't believe that at all.. that's why I am asking if there are other cases of dispensers/techs/ACTs being punished for dispensing errors.
No I agree Dizzy, and you have to add in the context that I do find it really awkward when working with a locum I have never seen before. I trained with my manager, and I think we've build an excellent relationship and that he does trust me. When I work with a locum, I expect they won't have the same standards, and somehow you can't just come in in the morning and have a briefing everytime on how they like things done. I have absolutely no problem if the locum decides that I can't check, I am fully aware of their responsibility, and if they haven't built a relationship with me and trust in me it's only fair that they refused. But I would hope they refuse for this reason, not because they think that ACTs are useless and prone to making mistakes (and from the ACTs I have been in touch with it seems quite often the mistake rate is a lot lower !) and think it's ok because after all it's not their problem.
I'm sure it is because they don't know the ACT if they are a new locum. If I was in the locums' position, I would make the same decision. They have to be 100% sure of the person they are working with. We have recently had many new locums passing through our branch. It's a difficult and frustrating situation for them and us. But I really hope we give them the best welcome and support them is every possible way. I think they have a raw deal sometimes.
Anyway, sorry i've gone off topic!!!! WE WANT MORE MONEY!!!!! Ha Ha Ha.
Yes I agree Dizzy, luckily I have always had locums who politely refused if they had to, it's perfectly fine with me (don't mind doing dispensing for ACT rate after all !)
Just had to say something as it is not nice to have a certain etiquette just because you are an ACT (e.g. no responsibility, take job lightly, no care etc...). Who knows, one day you might come across ACT/Tech that might just save your backside...
Well it's an hourly rate, and my company don't keep tabs on what hours I spend checking and what hours I don't.
At the end of the day, it's not my fault if the pharmacist/the conditions in the pharmacy (sickness, holidays etc) prevent me from doing the role I am paid to do so I shouldn't be penalised for that.
No problem but yes that's good news, that's what makes things better when you know you can't check but tomorrow you're going to be stressed up to your eyeballs because there is a lot of catching up to do !
Thanks Johnep, I have had a look at it, looks like I am liable as a technician for whatever I do too. I thought somehow when signing up with the RPSGB there was something mentioning being responsible for your work (and obviously errors), so I wonder if things aren't moving that way anyway...
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
