Page Section: Centre Content Column
Dispensing error at community pharmacy (06HDC12613)
Download Dispensing error at community pharmacy (06HDC12613) (PDF 142Kb)
(06HDC12613, 27 February
2007)
Pharmacist ~ Pharmacy ~ Prescription ~ Dispensing error ~
Standard operating procedures ~ Reporting procedures ~ Vicarious
liability ~ Rights 4(1), 4(2)
A 31-year-old woman was discharged from hospital after giving
birth. The obstetric registrar hand-wrote a prescription for one
325mg ferrous sulphate tablet once a day, and one 200mg tablet of
labetalol three times a day. The woman attended a pharmacy to have
the prescription dispensed.
When the pharmacy technician entered the prescription on the
computer, she incorrectly read the prescription, and typed
"Largactil" instead of "labetalol". Concerned about the
prescription because Largactil does not come in 200mg tablets, she
checked the shelves and the computer system to confirm that only
100mg tablets were available, and annotated the prescription
accordingly. The pharmacy technician and charge pharmacist did not
notice the error during the checking process.
There were a number of opportunities for the pharmacist to
realise the error, including evidence that indicated the woman was
probably breastfeeding; however, he failed to do so.
After taking the incorrect medication, the woman was taken to
the emergency department at the local hospital, and admitted. She
remained in hospital overnight, and was discharged the following
day.
The pharmacy had appropriate standard operating procedures in
place and was not vicariously liable for the pharmacist's breach.
It was held that the error was the responsibility of the charge
pharmacist, who unreservedly apologised to the woman. However, this
does not excuse the fact that he was not alert to the error during
the dispensing process, missing several significant opportunities
to have noted it. He also failed to comply fully with reporting
procedures. By failing to provide pharmacy services with reasonable
care and skill, and in compliance with professional standards, the
pharmacist breached Rights 4(1) and 4(2). He was referred to the
Director of Proceedings, who issued proceedings before the Health
Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. A charge of professional
misconduct was upheld and the pharmacist was fined $5,000 and
ordered to pay costs of $5,000. The Tribunal also recommended that
the Pharmacy Council undertake a competency review of the
pharmacist.
Link to Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal decision:
http://www.hpdt.org.nz/Default.aspx?tabid=172