Rise in legal action over addictive drugs could hit pharmacy

In 2005 as a Practice Manager I set-up with a pharmacist a Benzodiazepine Reduction Clinic, funded by the local Safer Neighbourhoods Partnership, which was funded by local authority and PCT. It was very successful with good patient outcomes and showed what an innovative, pro-active GP Practice/Pharmacist could do. It was offered to other GPs in the area but declined because "non of them had a problem with BZ prescribing". The PCT prescribing data showed otherwise, they were in denial. This was very surprising as a GP, just 2 years before had to pay approximately £50,000 compensation to a patient.

I am a community pharmacist and have had reason to contact my local GP surgery on a number of occasions regarding over prescribing of Benzodiazepines. each time I am told that "it's ok" or "it is as intended".
On one occasion the patient was very annoyed that I wouldn't dispense his prescription without having confirmation from the GP (who was not available until the following day). This particular patient was being prescribed 56 days supply every 28 days and I had queried it each time, but was told it was fine by the GP.
The patient returned the next day, after seeing the GP and presenting the prescription again. I contacted the surgery yet again and was instructed that the precription was fine and to go ahead and dispense.
QUESTION: What the hell else can I do?

ANSWER: Cover your a**e - always record the intervention on your PMR, date it, and add some detail relating to the intervention.

+1

I have a questio to Mr Reissner, how many times would you keep recording it on the PMR? and what is the use of such an intervention, except for legal purpose, if it is not going to benefit a patient ? By saying -- "Even if a patient only sued a GP who was at fault, that GP might be advised that a pharmacist was also at least partly to blame and could ask the court to add the pharmacist as a party to the case, and seek a contribution from the pharmacist towards any compensation payable to the patient," -- I feel you are rather encouraging the GPs to sue the pharmacists rather than warning us.

Its such a shame that we never bother to stop before an act takes place (i.e prescription generation from the GP) and shoot the executor (poor pharmacists always) who in all good faith tries hard to save the patient from any ill affects of their medication. When will the change occur ?

Irrespective of whether a treatment plan is documented or not, a claimant will succed in a claim for damages if he can prove that a treatment plan
1) was not in the claimants best interest..
2)The dose regimen and length were exceeded over and above the norm,
The pharmacist, in absence of any notification of a plan could only be liable if the treament was such that its exceeded the licensed limits, and if aware of the treatment plan, did not bring it to the attention of the prescriber in the event of any substantial deviation from the plan.
I have reason to believe that continual recording of interventions would lose its meaning, and would not be a defence in any litigation,if the pharmacist continually dispensed the prescribed medication, whilst fully aware of the deviation from the treatment plan and/or the adverse impact the medication was having on the patient. The pharmacist can refuse to dispense a prescription if he/she felt that the prescribing was off licensed limits, and/or that it could potentially cause ir-reversible damage to the patient.

Mr Reissner has presented an interesting article, perhaps it would be interesting to have his views on potential claims brought about by addictive "O.T.C." opiates and such products. We have had two MHRA reports and a further study which has clearly highlighted the pharmacists failure in combating addiction to such products. I can envise a claim for damges for

1)causing the claimant to feed his addiction rather than the approved licensed indication for the product.

2)Ir-reversible unquantifible damage caused by continual use of such products, and its secondary effects.

Let the debate commence.