The government’s plans to decriminalise dispensing errors are "rather vague", Numark has warned.

As part of a legal defence from prosecution for inadvertent dispensing errors, which was open for consultation until last Thursday (May 14), the Department of Health (DH) has proposed that pharmacy professionals must show they had acted “in the course of [their] profession” and “promptly” notified patients of an error when necessary.

In its consultation response, Numark agreed with the DH's “overall approach” but said it was worried that “some of the terms used are rather vague”.

Numark director of pharmacy services Mimi Lau said she “understood the general difficulty” of drafting a legal defence that could “comprehensively cover a wide range of situations”. But she warned that the approach taken would “inevitably lead to considerable subjective interpretation [and] some uncertainty within the sector.

Ms Lau said Numark agreed with the draft examples the DH had provided to help prosecutors decide if a pharmacist had acted unprofessionally - either by misusing their professional skills “for an improper purpose” or “showing a deliberate disregard for patient safety”.

But it was concerned that these examples were “open to considerable interpretation”. “We would like to see more guidance - supported by examples - on how the prosecution may interpret these new regulations, until case law is developed,” Ms Lau said.

Expanding the defence

The DH’s proposed defence would protect against prosecutions made under sections 63 and 64 of the Medicines Act. Ms Lau suggested that the defence be expanded to include all sections of act under which pharmacists could be prosecuted for an inadvertent error, including section 85 which was used for the prosecution of pharmacist Elizabeth Lee.

Last month, healthcare lawyer Noel Wardle told C+D that the vagueness of some of terms used by the DH could cause “uncertainty” about its proposed defence.

What issues did you raise in your consultation response?

We want to hear your views, but please express them in the spirit of a constructive, professional debate. For more information about what this means, please click here to see our community principles and information