Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I might as well give up now!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I might as well give up now!

    I've not been read through the site properly in a while, so not sure if anyone has mentioned this.Apologies if they have.

    This story was in the PJ a few weeks ago.I thoguht it was harsh judgement by the stat committee... Looks like I wasn't the only one. One tragic mistake in 30 years shouldn't condem the livelihood of a man.

    http://www.pharmj.com/Editorial/2006.../statcomm.html
    http://www.pharmj.com/Editorial/2006...nt/lett07.html

  • #2
    Originally posted by alex
    I've not been read through the site properly in a while, so not sure if anyone has mentioned this.Apologies if they have.

    This story was in the PJ a few weeks ago.I thoguht it was harsh judgement by the stat committee... Looks like I wasn't the only one. One tragic mistake in 30 years shouldn't condem the livelihood of a man.

    http://www.pharmj.com/Editorial/2006.../statcomm.html
    http://www.pharmj.com/Editorial/2006...nt/lett07.html
    There is a post or two somewhere on here, but this thing is growing so big it's hard to find! I think I put that we should all be at the statt comm if one dispensing error does it. It doesn't encourage you to report your own errors does it? I also put that if they really believed the guy has only made one error in 30 years they were living in cloud cookoo land!
    Lively debate is encouraged but please respect the opinions and feelings of others.
    Please help keep the forum vibrant by spreading the work to friends and colleagues via word of mouth or social media.
    Thank you for contributing to this site.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by alex
      One tragic mistake in 30 years shouldn't condem the livelihood of a man.
      It hasn't - he got a reprimand - he wasn't struck off.

      Jeff

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jeff
        It hasn't - he got a reprimand - he wasn't struck off.

        Jeff
        He wasn't but he will have had that big axe hanging over his head for over a year. Should this case have got this far - think of all the money these things cost. Also think of all the stress the guy suffered during that time.

        Jeff do you know what the privvy council do? I ask because all these cases go before them first, don't they? Why don't they stop ones like this, and others that seem silly to most people, before they reach the statt comm - or don't they have that power?

        The subject of making errors, and their consequences, seems a lottery to me. Fortunately most cause no harm to the patient, and are just written down somewhere and forgotten. If someone is harmed, and you therefore get reported, then the trouble starts. So my point is that it's basically luck as to wether you have any consequences to face. Should it be like this? Should we treat all errors the same way, regardless of the patient's outcome? Should the potential for harm be taken into consideration for all errors, or should it stay as it is?
        Last edited by admin; 11, October 2006, 06:46 AM.
        Lively debate is encouraged but please respect the opinions and feelings of others.
        Please help keep the forum vibrant by spreading the work to friends and colleagues via word of mouth or social media.
        Thank you for contributing to this site.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think the major problem with this case was that when the error was brought to the pharmacist's attention it was immediately swept under the carpet as a change in brand.

          If ever I get a phone call about differing tablets I get the person to read the packet to me, spelling the words if need be before I tell them that it's just a different brand.

          If the pharmacist had doen this then I would hope that it wouldn't have gone so far.

          Of course I could be wrong. (It has rarely been known!)
          Linnear MRPharmS

          Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: The biggest cause of brain damage and 100% preventable.

          In pregnancy: 1 fag is not safe, 1 x-ray is not safe and 1 drink is not safe.



          For handy pharmacy links try
          pharmacistance.co.uk

          If you like my posts or letters in the journal try my books!
          eloquent-e-tales

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Linnear
            I think the major problem with this case was that when the error was brought to the pharmacist's attention it was immediately swept under the carpet as a change in brand.
            Interesting that stat com didn't take that view - the pharmacist who is alleged to have said that it was a change in brand had no reprimand.

            Most of the time the change in brand answer would have been correct - and as you have probably realised by now THAT is an issue I'd like addressed as opposed to accepting a situation that confuses patients and leads pharmacists into mistakes.

            I've no idea what privy council does.

            Jeff

            Comment


            • #7
              I thought the pharmacist that basically ignored the error was the one that was reprimanded. In that case the whole thing sucks.

              Not the whole continuity of supply thing again Jeff! AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!
              Linnear MRPharmS

              Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder: The biggest cause of brain damage and 100% preventable.

              In pregnancy: 1 fag is not safe, 1 x-ray is not safe and 1 drink is not safe.



              For handy pharmacy links try
              pharmacistance.co.uk

              If you like my posts or letters in the journal try my books!
              eloquent-e-tales

              Comment

              Working...
              X