What liability does a technician have stemming from a misfilled prescription?

[BigEvilRx]

I was asked this yesterday.

Does anybody know the answer?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[owlegrad]

I was asked this yesterday.

Does anybody know the answer?

I know of no case where a technician was held liable for a mistake, other than losing their job. The tragic case of Emily Rose is almost certainly the most famous case which illustrates this. If there are any such cases I would be happy to hear of them.

 

[MountainPharmD]

None. The pharmacist is responsible for all prescriptions that leave the pharmacy.

 

[BigEvilRx]

The tragic case of Emily Rose ...

I remember hearing about this some time ago. For those that don't know the situation, here is a link to an article about it.

http://www.pharmacytechnician.org/en/art/277/

It was kinda hard to find. All I saw in a google search was "The Exorcism of Emily Rose."

I think you meant Emily Jerry, which is the girl you are talking about. She is the reason for Emily's Law.

 

[owlegrad]

I think you meant Emily Jerry...

Haha, I guess you must be right. Funny how the memory works, I would have sworn Emily Rose, until you said the exorcism of....

My bad, I certainly meant no disrespect.

 

[meister]

Why would anyone expect the technician to have any meaningful liability at all? The RPh is the one getting paid $50+/hr, the lawyers aren't going to target the minimum wage drop-out.

 

[J ROD]

Why would anyone expect the technician to have any meaningful liability at all?

That would be the only case I can think of where a tech would really get in trouble if they were "actively, meaning due to harm". Then, they would have intent do cause harm and if would not be just a mere mistake. In this case, it would still be the pharmacist's responsibility to stop or notice the mistake. So, the Rph would be in trouble as well.

 

[J ROD]

minimum wage drop-out.

little harsh.....

They make more than min wage and most are trained through a tech school program.

 

[meister]

That would be the only case I can think of where a tech would really get in trouble if they were "actively, meaning due to harm". Then, they would have intent do cause harm and if would not be just a mere mistake. In this case, it would still be the pharmacist's responsibility to stop or notice the mistake. So, the Rph would be in trouble as well.

Well technicians are certainly always liable criminally, I was mainly talking in terms of civil liability.

little harsh.....

They make more than min wage and most are trained through a tech school program.

I used to be a tech so I meant it half in jest.

 

[J ROD]

Well technicians are certainly always liable criminally, I was mainly talking in terms of civil liability.



I used to be a tech so I meant it half in jest.

Civil is easier to prove that criminal....but, true in that aspect, what is the need to go after the one that makes the less.....

in that case, I know many techs that make me wonder what in the hell they were taught.....I can teach my dog easier than some of the techs I have met....

 

[ronkoshy]

...

 

[J ROD]

if you are a hospital pharmacist, and you have to verify a clear IV solution, how can you do it? it is very easy for a tech to write the right numbers down on a piece of paper, but the actual making of the product may be done differently.

great example.....you cant know unless you actually watch them the entire time. Trust....

 

[owlegrad]

if you are a hospital pharmacist, and you have to verify a clear IV solution, how can you do it? it is very easy for a tech to write the right numbers down on a piece of paper, but the actual making of the product may be done differently.

a pharmacist cannot be put in jail bc of emily jerry. it is an unfortunate accident. there is no system currently in place that can prevent such an error again in the future.

They most certainly can - that is the whole point! That is exactly what happened! Right or wrong, it is what it is.

As for verifying a tech's work, that is tough. At my hospital the pharmacist comes back, takes a look at what is left in the various used vials as well as what size syringe was used. It ain't perfect but the pharmacist can at least make sure the right things were used and seemingly that roughly the correct amounts were used. A tech could game the system if they had malicious intent, but for catching human errors it is reasonable. Plus trust, as J DOB mentioned.

 

[ronkoshy]

...

 

[owlegrad]

I'm sorry, a pharmacist CAN be put in jail for a situation like Emily Jerry.. you're right, that is what happened. I meant to say a pharmacist should not be put in jail in such a situation.

I wondered if that was what you meant. I agree that criminal punishment is...bad.