owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,393
- Reaction score
- 12,074
Med Error
- Thread starter owlegrad
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 1
Am I a bad person that I'm kinda rolling at the comments? It's almost like reading youtube all over again.
It is a shame what happened to the lady though. more than likely what happened is that a tech didn't verify the address/DOB/phone number, whatever. It happens when people are busy, especially if the person has an unusual first and last name...Not trying to stand up for the pharmacy but that's how it goes sometimes...
That statement was laced with empathy, as much as possible on a thread🙂
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2009
- Messages
- 13,244
- Reaction score
- 201
Yeah I read about that last night...
Looks like someone didn't do their job correctly. The whole situation sucks- for everyone. Such a shame something like this happens. But, errors happen everyday. We are only human. It does bring to light that it isn't superfluous to check stuf 2-3 times to ensure it's the right med/right patient etc.
Looks like someone didn't do their job correctly. The whole situation sucks- for everyone. Such a shame something like this happens. But, errors happen everyday. We are only human. It does bring to light that it isn't superfluous to check stuf 2-3 times to ensure it's the right med/right patient etc.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
That is what happens when you under staff your pharmacies. Safeway is one of the most poorly run companies I have ever heard of or had the misfortune to work for. Safeway is a joke. They are the CVS of grocery store pharmacies.
What a line of BS. Safeway has cut thier staffing levels back to near CVS levels. Something like this just happened here in the DFW area at another grocery store chain. It is incidents like this that we will here more and more about as the staffing levels and support contiune to decline. I am not surprised at all.
What a line of BS. Safeway has cut thier staffing levels back to near CVS levels. Something like this just happened here in the DFW area at another grocery store chain. It is incidents like this that we will here more and more about as the staffing levels and support contiune to decline. I am not surprised at all.
She should take some extra folic acid. A single dose, in the amount she probably took, is unlikely to cause birth defects or a miscarriage. Pregnant women have been given large doses as chemotherapy, not knowing they were pregnant, and had healthy babies. They will probably be fine.
And I will agree that a lawsuit is in order.
And I will agree that a lawsuit is in order.
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 22,783
- Reaction score
- 346
For what? It doesn't sound like she's suffered any damages yet.
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 22,783
- Reaction score
- 346
If she has had any expenses or lost wages, that would be reasonable. I think I read in the comments that Safeway has agreed to pay medical costs related to the medication error.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 1
I foresee an issue later down the line where if the child comes out in any way "un-ideal" she is going to blame it on the medication error. Autism? gotta be methotrexate. Polydactyl? Yup, pharmacist's fault. IQ not above 150? Yeah, that damn pharmacist ruined her baby's future.
This sounds like there is going to be a latency period while being pregnant and then it'll fire up again when the baby is born and for a few years after. This doesn't sound like it will end soon.
And it won't solely be the lady's fault, the lawyers will be egging her along the way since the pharmacy already said they would pay costs associated with the error.
This sounds like there is going to be a latency period while being pregnant and then it'll fire up again when the baby is born and for a few years after. This doesn't sound like it will end soon.
And it won't solely be the lady's fault, the lawyers will be egging her along the way since the pharmacy already said they would pay costs associated with the error.
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 22,783
- Reaction score
- 346
Her attorneys will have to prove "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the methotrexate caused whatever problem the child has.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 1
I concur. Didn't say it would be easy. Didn't say it was going to be short either. But when a company says they are going to pay all the costs associated with this medical error the lawyers will be doing what they can to prove there is some risk associated with it. And in the lawyers' and client's eyes since there could possibly be multiple ways this could affect a child, some of which might not crop up until their infancy or later, this isn't going to settle down quickly.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
This type of error is a nightmare scenario. It will not end once the baby is born and seemingly health.
If Safeway is smart they will settle quickly and settle big. You are correct. Everything that is wrong with this kid will be blamed on the medication error.
I am going take this article to work and make everyone read it. The bottom line is no matter how busy or how poorly staffed we are we need to slow down and take the time to do things right. I will take 100 pissed off customers who got their prescriptions without any errors over 99 happy customers and 1 customer who we made a mistake on.
Remember.....Pharmacists are licensed to practice pharmacy NOT corporations. Do the right thing.
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 22,783
- Reaction score
- 346
I wonder what the statute of limitations is in that state? Since she can't sue for "possible future damages" and will like want to get some money NOW, I bet she'll settle with Safeway for [undisclosed amount] and be done with it. Or Safeway could agree to pay only medical expenses and early screenings to detect possible malformations and then take their chances that the child will not suffer long term adverse effects or that the statute of limitations will apply.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 1
Not to mention things like this can tie up in court for YEARS. A friend of the family had to sue a car mfr. for a defect killing his wife (proven) and it took almost 15 years for the court to rule in his favor. I bet they're going to settle and the amount may or may not change depending on what preliminary tests show for the baby.
I sorta wish the case would go to court because I wouldn't mind the pharmacy's dirty laundry being aired. Something about short staffing hours and the number of scripts being done per day (and that being the norm) would get someone's attention and be put on the list with other similar incidents. But maybe I'm just a little hopeful that something good will come up out of the lawsuit. Maybe I'm just a hopeful romantic. 🙄
Statute of limitations for some states vary, not to mention that if the child dies then the statute of limitations doesn't apply for many (if not all) states.
I wonder what happened to the pharmacist at the company. Even if they weren't responsible and had no legal issues they would still probably be fired... This whole thing has a slight feel of Emily and the IV bag from a few years ago.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- 14
I did a quick lit search - there are data suggesting that the threshold dose of MTX to induce birth defects is 10mg/wk, though there's a case report of a single dose of 7.5mg inducing abnormalities.
Given that the t ½ of MTX may be up to 15 h, I'd say to give her folic acid 5 mg daily x 3 days. Or would the 1mg in a daily prenatal vitamin be sufficient?
Given that the t ½ of MTX may be up to 15 h, I'd say to give her folic acid 5 mg daily x 3 days. Or would the 1mg in a daily prenatal vitamin be sufficient?
If I may add my (non-medical) two cents, I would like to respectfully disagree with the above quoted paragraphs.
While I can sympathize with any professional's aversion to potential malpractice claims--indeed, we lawyers have to pay for malpractice insurance as well--I don't believe that the malpractice system is in such a poor state as the above post seems to imply. I think we can all agree that giving a patient the incorrect medication, as described in the article, is preventable and can cause great harm. Indeed, the methotrexate may very well produce significant damage to the child; only time and a well-reasoned investigation will tell. As we cannot yet possibly know what degree of harm, if any, occurred or will occur with respect the child, I find it irresponsible to trivialize what was done to this woman.
As to the above notion that attorneys will be egging the woman along: put simply, malpractice claims are extremely difficult to win. Juries are loathe to find physicians and other health professionals liable, no matter how egregious the conduct. I am aware that this differs from the often anecdotal claims that various medical groups tend to make, but I invite anyone concerned with the health liability system to seriously look into the matter.
Certainly, not all lawsuits have merit, and truly frivolous litigation should be dealt with severely. But to imply that a victim of clear malpractice is already somehow plotting to file frivolous litigation is nonsensical and, I believe, antithetical to the high standards of the Pharmacy profession.
In closing, I'd like to mention that I have tremendous respect for the work that each of you do. The world is a better place because of all health professionals, and none of this is meant to denigrate Pharmacy, Medicine, or any of the health professions. Perhaps this incident may shed some light on the overworked and underpaid nature of many Pharmacists, improving conditions for pharmacists and patients alike.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 7,845
- Reaction score
- 7
I think the patient should share some of the blame as well. There are some things that you have to be cognizant of and primarily, the name on the prescription is one of them. Also, as a patient, you need to double check the drug you are receiving. I was prescribed a med and somehow when I was picking it up I got the wrong drug. It was my name on the bottle but the drug was not what was prescribed and I immediately brought it up to the pharmacist and got the issue straightened out.
ALWAYS DOUBLE CHECK THE LABEL TO ENSURE YOU ARE GETTING THE RIGHT DRUG. If the drug name is different, always ask questions. Just my $0.02
ALWAYS DOUBLE CHECK THE LABEL TO ENSURE YOU ARE GETTING THE RIGHT DRUG. If the drug name is different, always ask questions. Just my $0.02
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 1
I have strictly quoted the passages I would like to address. I am not saying that the lady is trying to sue the pharmacy for money like they served her hot coffee. I'm stating that there are going to be long periods of time where there could be concern about the development of the child.
In the womb it can be monitored to see if the fetus has survived. When the child is delivered it can be observed if there are any immediate deformities that aren't easily observable in the womb, as well as making sure the baby survives the delivery and time afterwards. However, possible mental disorders can't be observed until infancy or later such as autism. In later years she can try to identify if there are any deficiencies like other parents; school grades, social tendencies, and the like. Therefore, the patient/client will have to observe her child for a long period of time to make sure that there are no unusual developments in her child. And at the point in which the observance is made, it will need to be determined if the methotrexate exposure caused anything to the child. Whether or not this is the case, as can surely be debated on this forum, a mother who has no medical experience will surely wonder how much of her child's possible developments have any correlation to taking the medicine. Surely you would agree that people tend to take an event that has happened to them in the past and correlate it to what is happening in the present.
As for attorneys "egging" a client on, perhaps that was not the best choice of words. However, the attorney is there to provide legal options to a client and if the attorney believes that there is a necessity for reparations that the client hasn't seen, they will advise them to seek out the best legal action. Therefore, for years to come, attorneys could possibly be involved with the child's development trying to see if there is any cause to re-visit the case with the pharmacy, unless a settlement is reached where the client can no longer sue the pharmacy. And while juries may not find health professionals liable, if you look at the comments left on the article there is a dichotomy in the opinions between being the pharmacy's fault for the medicine going out with the lady being a victim and that the lady is at fault for not being more educated on her medicine. Therefore, it could easily go one way or the other in a jury depending on how the case is presented (coming from a person with no legal experience.)
As for the victim wanting to plot a frivolous litigation, that's not the intent of the statement. She is a victim of receiving the wrong medicine, that is clear. I'm speaking more on the lines that she is going to be a mother; she will want the best for her child and will take the actions necessary to provide the best for them. And it is natural to blame a catastrophic thing like taking a medicine that has the capability of aborting a child to causing some problems with the child. Some people could blow it out of proportion while others may not. There was a little hyperbole in the statement about the IQ less than 150 but as for the medicine causing autism, not too long ago it was thought vaccines could cause autism in children so another medicine isn't a far leap. The victim will do what she must for her child and if that means jumping at any issues and making the guilty parties responsible, then she will. I just hope she won't go overboard but that is rolling dice depending on the person; I would like to think that she will not do so.
As for the victim, she is 19 years old. She doesn't have the legal expertise of an attorney so she will rely on them to assist her with these matters with 100% faith that they have her best intentions at heart. I hope they do because they could easily turn it into getting more money and drawing the case out rather than settling (if in the best interest of the client.) This is where the "egging" part has come out which is from only a little bit of experience in the family where that was the case. Attorney's are a excellent asset to anybody; the provide an extremely valuable service for people who don't know how the law works and provide options and a plan of action for people who are drowning in the details of a case.
I take no offense in what you have said for it is legitimate. In closing, I'm just trying to say that people can see 2 events and try to connect dots that aren't there. Couple this with a mother trying to keep the best interest of her child and the lack of medical knowledge, and this case can easily be extended out for years if the client and attorneys don't believe a settlement is in the best interest. The details of the case as well as seeing the opinions of people who are reading the article show that you can get a jury that might be swayed to favor either the client or the pharmacy depending on how the case is handled. I'm curious to see how this settles in the future. I do agree with your statement and hope that this will shed some light on the operations of pharmacy and help further the cause of better working conditions for the safety of patients.
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 22,783
- Reaction score
- 346
She can't file a lawsuit now and then let it be "extended out for years" just to see if something happens. Furthermore, if there are no damages (at this point) then I don't see how she can file at all. No damages = no case. That's not how the legal system works.
Also, there is no evidence that methotrexate causes autism.
Also, there is no evidence that methotrexate causes autism.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 1
Correct. There is no evidence. Like I said, she could be drawing correlations that aren't there, just like people have done with taking medicines before and with many other things. As for the extended out for years thing, like I said, no legal knowledge but that was my take; if the pharmacy says they will pay for the expenses incurred as a result of the mishap then I didn't find it unreasonable to say that only lasted for 6 months or so since some things might not be easily proven until later down the line.
And yes, I could totally be wrong. That's what's so great about opinions and reasoning, they can easily change. Please feel free to correct me 😛
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 22,783
- Reaction score
- 346
Like others have alluded, this isn't the first prenatal methotrexate exposure to have ever happened. It's just being hyped by the media. Available evidence suggests that she will deliver a healthy baby.
There was another case where a pharmacist dispensed the wrong medication that was thought to have resulted in an early miscarriage. Although it was acknowledged that the medication COULD have caused the miscarriage, the pharmacist was not found liable b/c it could not be proven that the drug was the cause, since many factors can cause a spontaneous early miscarriage. I wish I could find the reference. The liability is not clear cut in this case either. The patient could lose this pregnancy for reasons totally unrelated to the methotrexate.
There was another case where a pharmacist dispensed the wrong medication that was thought to have resulted in an early miscarriage. Although it was acknowledged that the medication COULD have caused the miscarriage, the pharmacist was not found liable b/c it could not be proven that the drug was the cause, since many factors can cause a spontaneous early miscarriage. I wish I could find the reference. The liability is not clear cut in this case either. The patient could lose this pregnancy for reasons totally unrelated to the methotrexate.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 1
Following up on what delano mentioned (cool car in that avatar btw) what are the opinions on the fact that the bottle was actually labeled correctly with the intended patient's name. The bottle was incorrectly dispensed, of course, but does this fact actually change anything in the court of law? I could see the pharmacy being at fault if the wrong pills were put in a correctly labeled bottle, but am not really sure what to think about this other scenario.
As someone else said, it really does suck for everyone since both parties seemed to be somewhat careless. This really is the worst case scenario legally though, since the amount of damages that could be claimed could be quite enormous. As someone also said, they should file fast and file hard.
As someone else said, it really does suck for everyone since both parties seemed to be somewhat careless. This really is the worst case scenario legally though, since the amount of damages that could be claimed could be quite enormous. As someone also said, they should file fast and file hard.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,393
- Reaction score
- 12,074
I wondered about this as well. Of course the pharmacy made the error, but the label did have the correct patient's name and presumably address, phone number, DOB, ect. So.....how can you not notice that? It's not like I expect her to know the name of the medication she was prescribed (God forbid) but I would expect her to notice that ALL the info on the label was wrong. I am curious what others think of this.
It goes without saying that I wish her the very best and hope/pray that everything turns out fine for her.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
People are stupid. Expect them to make every mistake possible and take responsibility for nothing.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,285
- Reaction score
- 4
This may be a stupid question, but since I'm guessing it was probably a tech that actually gave the patient the wrong prescription, would the pharmacist actually face any liability here at all if that's the case? If the pharmacist filled everything correctly, but a tech retrieved the wrong rx and rang it up, there's no way that the pharmacist could have prevented this, short of checking the name on every rx that leaves the store (ha! who has time for that??). I know that legally, a tech mistake tends to be the responsibility of the pharmacist on duty, but would that concept apply here?
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
Assuming the prescription was filled correctly it would be the responsibility of who ever sold the medication.
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2010
- Messages
- 301
- Reaction score
- 40
I agree if documentation can be found to prove that the technician that sold the medication was trained on proper procedures for verification. If this training is documented and the technician failed to follow the proper procedure, then all blaim falls on the technician.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41481554/ns/health-womens_health/?gt1=43001
Here is another article on this incident.
Already throwing the Pharmacist under the bus. Forget the corporate intrusion into the pharmacy, the unsafe policies, the dangerous staffing cuts. Nope this was clearly a case of a Pharmacist not following company policys and procedures. BS!!!!!
This right here is what we are setting ourselves up for everyday we come in and work under unsafe conditions. It is only a matter of time before something like this happens to each one of us. What does the company expect when you are running around the pharmacy like a chicken with your head cut off doing 20 different things because all of your hours have been cut.
Blame goes 100% onto Safeway. I know from personnal experience they are a ****ty company to work for. The CVS of the grocery store world.
Here is another article on this incident.
Already throwing the Pharmacist under the bus. Forget the corporate intrusion into the pharmacy, the unsafe policies, the dangerous staffing cuts. Nope this was clearly a case of a Pharmacist not following company policys and procedures. BS!!!!!
This right here is what we are setting ourselves up for everyday we come in and work under unsafe conditions. It is only a matter of time before something like this happens to each one of us. What does the company expect when you are running around the pharmacy like a chicken with your head cut off doing 20 different things because all of your hours have been cut.
Blame goes 100% onto Safeway. I know from personnal experience they are a ****ty company to work for. The CVS of the grocery store world.
- Joined
- May 16, 2009
- Messages
- 1,456
- Reaction score
- 1,239
So was it a pharmacist or a tech who rang her up?
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,285
- Reaction score
- 4
That makes sense logically, and was what I was thinking, but laws don't always follow logic.
The article makes it sound like the pharmacist actually rang her up, but they don't address it directly. In my experience, the pharmacists I've worked with rarely ring anyone up. That doesn't mean it didn't happen that way, but I just wonder if whoever wrote the article made an assumption without considering the possibility that a technician actually made the mistake.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 1
Or even better, a non-tech cashier from up front who was filling in rang the person up. Happens all the time in retail chains and in some grocery store pharmacies.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2009
- Messages
- 13,244
- Reaction score
- 201
I was thinking the same thing...
This used to be the worst, they'd have no clue about anything other than giving change, and you couldn't even train them about pharmacy-related things because they were only there for about 30 min/month.
"No, that's fine, I'm kind of in a hurry..."🙄
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 22,783
- Reaction score
- 346
She might have declined counseling. But it's equally likely that it wasn't offered. Sounds like this pharmacy needs to review their out window procedures. It really takes no time at all to verify address or DOB. To not do it is just laziness/sloppiness.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2008
- Messages
- 9,847
- Reaction score
- 1,843
It doesn't matter, when a mistake is made, it always comes back to the pharmacist because the tech wasn't trained properly.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 1
I don't know safeway personally, but don't some companies ask electronically if you want counseling? Yes, in a perfect world a tech would ask her as well if she wants counseling but if the lady checks "no" on that pad like most other people do...
- Joined
- May 7, 2005
- Messages
- 22,783
- Reaction score
- 346
We'd have to find out what the law in Colorado requires. Some states don't permit techs or cashiers to make the offer to counsel. I would imagine the electronic thing is not permitted in some states as well.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 1
Yeah that's true. I live in NC so we are one of the most relaxed state when it comes to things like this. We can ask if people want to counsel, we don't need ID for anything, techs don't need formal training, etc. I keep forgetting other states are more strict (SC vs NC is like night vs day)
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
It is the same as everywhere else, OBRA 90. There is no state specific requirement that the offer to counsel has to be made by the pharmacist.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- 14
I can see the reasoning behind this, but it's rather heavy-handed and silly in reality. Like, the pharmacist is in the bathroom, and people who come to p/u their regular meds have to wait for the pharmacist to come back (or does the rule only apply to new rxs?)
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
- Messages
- 181
- Reaction score
- 1
One of the commenters on The Pharmacy Chick blog said she dug around and found an article that she was counseled that MTX should not be taken by pregnant women. I did a quick search and couldn't find that article..If this did happen, I'm suprised it hasn't came out.
Also, all of the headlines are saying instead of getting an antibiotic she got an "abortion pill." wtf.
Also, all of the headlines are saying instead of getting an antibiotic she got an "abortion pill." wtf.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 1
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,393
- Reaction score
- 12,074
Is that not a fair statement?
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,285
- Reaction score
- 4
While technically true, it's misleading. As most people here know already, it has several other uses which are more common, but a headline saying "pregnant woman accidentally given arthritis medication" doesn't generate the same amount of buzz. The headline makes it sound like the pill is an automatic abortion, and that's not the case.
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,342
- Reaction score
- 73
No, especially if it's an "off label" use. Many drugs can cause fetal abortions, but they aren't abortion medications.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,393
- Reaction score
- 12,074
Fair enough, but I wouldn't call it an egregious misrepresentation of the truth. I don't even think it is particularly mis-leading, although it certainly is sensational as you say. The headline could read "pregnant woman accidentaly given medication that has many uses, one of which is the off label use to cause abourtions", but that doesn't really roll right off the tongue.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2010
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 1
"Pregnant woman given pill that may cause abortion?"
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,393
- Reaction score
- 12,074
That's pretty close to "pregnant woman given abortion pill", wouldn't you say?
Similar threads
