Ewan Davis wrote:
> Mary Hawking wrote:
>> In message <[log in to unmask]>, Jeff Green
>> <[log in to unmask]> writes
>>
>>> Ewan Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some GP systems (certainly TPP SystmOne) will allow you to prescribe
>>>> at dm+d AMPP (actual medical product pack) level which will allow
>>>> prescribing of a particular brand or manufacturer.
>>> I see loads of generic scripts where a manufacturer is specified.
>>> Overwhelmingly it is for no reason and is ignored. (Just like the
>>> word AEROSOL that seems to appear under hypromellose eye drops 0.3%
>>> scripts.)
>> How do you know it is for no reason - and who is liable if a
>> dispenser ignores a prescriber's instructions? And how on earth does
>
> While I would accept that due to poor system configuration scripts often
> appear with manufacture specified for no good reason - The pharmacist can't
> know this and is REQUIRED to follow the prescribers instruction unless they
> agree a change with the prescriber.
Check that with the PPA (or whatever it is called nowadays) the see no
obligation to dispense the annotated make of generic. (I checked years ago).
> If you have example of
> errors like these and send a scan of the script to me (with patient but not
> practice identifiers obliterated) I will make sure they get to the right
> people.
Thanks for the offer - but I'm not certain where that leaves me on GP
confidentiality.
My big bugbear on scripts is that GP and pharmacy software too often use
different names for the same things. e.g. why does one system insist on
"hydrocotisone 1% and miconalozole 2%" while the other end of the chain
only recognises "miconazole 2% and hydrocortisone 1%."
It can make finding the product from my picklist irritating.
Jeff
|