I might as well give up now!

[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

[admin]

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!

[Jeff]

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

[admin]

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?

[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.

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!)

[Jeff]

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

[Linnear]

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!