Friday, August 31, 2007
Have we really gone heartless?
Sunday, August 26, 2007
More on "look-alike" and "sound-alike" dispensing errors
If, for example, "the lady at the counter" paid more attention to generics, she might have refused to fill the prescription for Methergin if the generic name was not written on it. Or, if the generic name was written, she might have thought it as an "impossible prescription" if she have interpreted the brand name as Melleril. [1]
A.O. 63 s. 1989 specifically states that "[v]iolative and impossible prescriptions as defined in A.O. 62 (Generic Prescribing) shall not be filled. The pharmacist shall advise the prescriber of the problem and/or instruct the customer to get the proper prescription..." (Section 4, 4.1)
The dermatologist who prescribed Thiamine had observed generic prescribing but the pharmacist's failure to practice what was required under the law had led to a dispensing error by filling the prescription with Thorazine. [2] (Oral doses of thiamine is being used as an mosquito repellant.) [3]
References:
1. "Wow mali" by Joy Gonzalez at http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=goodLife02_sept_2003 [cited Aug.16, 2007]
2. http://ca.supremecourt.go/cardis/CV83632.pdf [cited Aug. 16, 2007]
3. "Avoiding Mosquito Bites" at http://www.infomediko.com.ph/past_episodes.html#061107avoiding [cited Aug. 26, 2007]
Sunday, August 12, 2007
"Look-alike" and "sound-alike" dispensing error
Here is part of that news article:
“… on Nov. 25, 1993, [Sebastian] Baking went to the clinic of Dr. Cesar Sy for a medical checkup. After undergoing an ECG, blood and hematology examinations, the doctor found that Baking's blood sugar and triglycerides were above normal levels, for which he gave two medical prescriptions -- Benalize tablets for his triglycerides and Diamicron for his blood sugar.
"Baking proceeded to Mercury Drug-Alabang branch to buy the prescribed medicines.
"However, the saleslady misread the prescription for Diamicron as a prescription for Dormicum, a potent sleeping tablet, and sold it to Baking, unaware that it was the wrong medicine.
"On the third day of taking Dormicum, Baking figured in a vehicular accident when he fell asleep while driving his car and it collided with another car. He said that he could not remember anything about the collision or felt its impact.
"Suspecting that the tablet he took may have a bearing on his physical and mental state at the time of the collision, Baking returned to Dr. Sy's clinic.”Upon being shown the medicine, the physician was shocked to find that what was sold to him was Dormicum, instead of Diamicron, prompting Baking to file a complaint for damages before the Quezon City RTC.”
Finally, this year, the Supreme Court has ordered Mercury to pay damages to Mr. Baking for the dispensing error “that caused him to fall asleep and figure in a vehicular accident.”
*****
Although the said article was way back in May 2007, I still decided to write the editor to comment:
Here’s what I wrote:
Dear Editor,
I just would like to comment on the article "High court upholds damage suit v. drugstore chain" (May 29, 2007 issue).
It is my opinion that the error in dispensing Dormicum instead of Diamicron is in the first place an error in prescribing the drug by its brand name.
Medication errors due to "sound-alike" and "look-alike drugs" happen and the article did not mention whether the doctor prescribed the drug by its generic name, because if he did, the drug will most likely be dispensed correctly.
This is because the generic name of Diamicron is gliclazide while midazolam is that of Dormicum. (Both generic names are not "sound-alike and "look-alike".)
Under the Generics Act of 1988, drugs prescribed by their brand names only should not be filled. So if, in this case, the drug was prescribed in its brand name (Diamicron) without the doctor writing the generic name (gliclazide), the drug store chain's employee indeed violated the law in the same manner that the doctor violated the same law.
Then I would say that if only the prescriber and drug store chain employee complied with the Generics Act, none of this thing would happen to the patient.
*****
I shared the above article to my colleagues and there were questions that came up in relation to the case:
1. How come the saleslady had access to a regulated drug, such as midazolam? (Pharmacists are the only ones authorized to have access to regulated and restricted drugs. These drugs are kept locked in their storage areas.)
2. Was there a pharmacist at that time? Should he/she be held liable?
3. Was there a dosage strength written on the prescription? If there was, how come she did not doubt the correctness of the drug that she dispensed? (Dormicum is available as 15 mg per tablet while Diamicron is available as 80 mg per tablet.; Diamicron MR is available as 30 mg per tablet)
*****
In the above case, the Supreme Court ruled that “ ’It is generally recognized that the drugstore business is imbued with public interest. The health and safety of the people will be put into jeopardy if drugstore employees will not exercise the highest degree of care and diligence in selling medicines’ ”.
I hope that every pharmacist who reads this learns that we have a social responsibility to guard the public health and by being negligent of our duty to properly dispense drugs, we certainly have a price to pay for our shortcomings. Pharmacy assistants or clerks should never be allowed to do the job that we are licensed to do. Let alone, to dispense a drug without regard to its classification as prescription or OTC drug.
*Source:
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/man/2007/05/29/news/high.court.upholds.damage.suit.v..drugstore.chain.html
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Questionable promotional material
Last July 21, I wrote the Bureau of Food and Drugs inquiring whether drug companies are now allowed to advertise their drug products with the brand name above the boxed generic name.
My concern is regarding the 2 billboards of a popular cold preparation along the east service road of the South Super Highway. One is located near Sucat tollway and the other is located before the Skyway in Bicutan.
I was on my way today for work and while I was travelling the South Super Highway, I remember about this matter. So I checked and saw that the 2 billboards were already changed into a multivitamin product which complies with Section 6 (c) of the Generics Act of 1988.
I am not sure whether it was because of my inquiry that the 2 billboards were changed but if it was BFAD's action to my letter, I'm thankful that it was done accordingly.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Quote of the day
"We don’t want to be a critic of the Botica ng Bayan program but there are some unanswered questions about it. Firstly, why does the Philippine International Trading Corp. import generic medicines from India when we have a pharmaceutical industry which also manufactures generic drugs? Secondly, how come the drugstores of the Botica ng Bayan are not run by professional pharmacists? From a write-up on the Botica ng Bayan, it appears that even buy-and-sell entrepreneurs can get Botica franchises and sell medicine. Selling medicine like selling goods in a sari-sari store could be dangerous to the health of our medicine consumers."
- Jesus C. Sison in his article People's trust in courts boosted
Malaya (Opinion) , March 24, 2007
Source: http://www.malaya.com.ph/mar24/edjesus.htm
Saturday, March 10, 2007
PPhA president promoting use of generics
Guess what? It was none other than Ms. Normita D. Leyesa, President of the PPhA, in a TV commercial with PITC chairman Roberto Pagdanganan promoting the use of generic drugs!
This was the first time that I've seen this kind of commercial since the Generics Act was enacted in 1988.
True enough to the PPhA preamble, President Leyesa has shown that "A pharmacist, in coordination with the government and other health professional helps in the formulation and implementation of health care policies, standards and programs designed for the benefit of society."
Let's all hope that the members of the PPhA feels the same way.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Urging pharmacists to back lowering prices of drugs
Dear editor,
This is a reaction to the article "Pharmacists urged to back lowering prices of drugs" wherein it was stated that Senator Mar Roxas "called on the Pharmaceutical [and] HealthCare Association of the Philippines (Phap) to join hands with the Department of Health (DOH) in expanding public access to quality medicines at more affordable prices rather than block the passage of legislation to lower the cost of medicines."
I just would like to say that the Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines is NOT an association of pharmacists but "a business association representing the providers of most of the country's medicines" whose "members include the country's leading research-based companies of pharmaceuticals and medical services." It claims to have a membership of at least "64 Filipino and international companies." (2)
Although the association says that it is a "non-profit, non-stock organization", (2) it is pretty obvious that it has to protect the business interests of its members.
It is true that the "cost of medicines in the country is too high" and I believe that as a pharmacist, I should support every move of the government to lower its prices for the benefit of the majority of our countrymen.
Senator Mar Roxas might as well call on the Philippine Pharmaceutical Association (PPhA), the Philippine Society of Hospital Pharmacists (PSHP), the Community Pharmacists Association of the Philippines (CPAP) as well as the Drugstores Association of the Philippines (DSAP) regarding this matter.
________
References:
1. http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/man/2007/02/26/bus/pharmacists.urged.to.back.lowering.prices.of.drugs.html
2. http://www.phap.org.ph/home.aspx
Friday, March 02, 2007
Interview with an applicant
Just recently, we interviewed a pharmacist who was previously employed in another hospital. As I went over her resume, I learned that she had finished a sponsored clinical pharmacy course.
Knowing that the sponsored course aimed at assisting other hospitals to get started with their clinical pharmacy service, I asked why she resigned from the hospital pharmacy and got herself a job in a non-government agency involved in iradicating tuberculosis in the country.
_______________
*http://www.pshp.org.ph/static.aspx?categID=10
Monday, February 26, 2007
Quote of the day: On educating consumers on Generics Law
- Senator Mar Roxas, on his sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 2263 to make the laws on patents, trade names and trade marks more responsive to the health needs of the Filipino people delivered at the Senate session hall on August 16, 2006.
_________________________
pinoypharmacist's comment:
Former BFAD Director, Quintin L. Kintanar, M.D., Ph.D., in recognizing the role of pharmacists, said that "Under the Generics Act of 1988, the pharmacist is not only a dispenser of drugs. He is also a teacher; he has been given the responsibility of informing the consumer what are the available generically-equivalent drug products and their prices."
He also said that "To discharge this responsibility properly the pharmacist himself must be professionally competent and must also be well-informed on the provisions of the Generics Act and the current developments in the pharmaceutical field."
Further, A.O. No. 63 series of 1989 requires drugstores, botica and other drug outlets "To inform the patient/buyer of all available drug products generically equivalent to the one prescribed with their corresponding prices. In so doing, the drug outlet shall not favor or suggest any particular product so that the patient/buyer may fully and adequately exercise his option to choose." (Section 3)
So, you see how confident and ready the government was about the role of pharmacists when they drafted the implementing rules of the Generics Act. It seems, however that WE WERE THE ONES WHO ARE NOT READY.
But wait... Although Michael Tan (in his article, Generics again) observes that " drugstores don't always inform consumers about the possible choices", he admits that he "sees some hopeful signs around generics" based on his own experiences in buying medicines.
Reference:
http://news.inquirer.net/common/print.php?index=2&story-id=53269&site-id25&col=81
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Labeling our patients' medications
My lecture on the subject matter includes powerpoint presentation of drug labels improperly (read unprofessionally) done that were collected from community drugstores and hospital pharmacies.
In one of this orientation lecture, an intern revealed to us that the pharmacist in a community drugstore where she had her internship reprimanded her for completing the information on the label simply because it took her longer to fill the prescription order.
What a disgusting way to train our interns!!!
Friday, February 16, 2007
For not filling a violative prescription
Saturday, February 10, 2007
A frontline pharmacist in action
Monday, January 08, 2007
An inquiry for a dispensing doctor
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
The issue behind Senate Bill 1900
If the bill passed the Senate, physicians will be allowed "to diagnose, treat, operate or prescribe and dispense any remedy for any human disease, injury, deformity, physical or mental condition."(1)
To air its position, the Philippine Society of Hospital Pharmacists issued an official statement for "A Call to Modify Senate Bill 1900." (2) The Drugstores Association of the Philippines also wrote the senate outlining its comments on the said bill. (3)
I suspect that maybe the reason why the word "dispense" found its way into Senate Bill 1900 is because of our failure to do properly what we are licensed to do.
For example, Dr. A.G. Romualdez, Jr. claimed that “here in the Philippines, until the advent of the Pharmacy Law…, most private Filipino patients obtained their medicines from the doctors who prescribed them. In most of the country, dispensing physicians were historically a big help in the distribution chain of drugs and they ensured that services were reasonably priced. Unfortunately, the practice has largely disappeared mainly because, under the Pharmacy Law, doctors were allowed to dispense only those medicines that they directly administered either by injection or inhalation or direct application to specific organs.” (4)
Now, this should be a wake up call to all of us...
1. http://www.inq7.net/globalnation/col_pik/2003/jul31.htm
2. http://www.pshp.org.ph/article.aspx?ID=5
3. http://www.dsap.org.ph/index1.php?fid=senate
4. Romualdez, A.G. Jr., MD. "Anti-poor conspiracies." Malaya 18 Aug. 2004.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Not a license to kill
Friday, December 08, 2006
An inquiry regarding PITC's legal mandate
Last November 24 I wrote the Philippine International Trading Corporation (PITC) through pitc@pitc.gov.ph asking for clarification regarding its legal mandate.* In my letter, I asked the following:
"Isn't it that under Section 10 of the Generics Act of 1988, only raw materials and not finished drug products are to be imported 'during periods of critical shortage and absolute necessity' and that the government agency authorized under that law 'to import raw materials of which there is a shortage for the use of Filipino-owned or controlled drug establishments to be marketed and sold exclusively under generic nomenclature' is the Department of Health?"
Today, when I opened my mailbox, I found out I got a reply from Mr. Steve Francis A. Roldan, PITC's Legal Officer V, and this was his response:
Thank you very much for your e-mail dated November 24, 2006 expressing your support for PITC’s efforts in bringing down the prices of medicines to benefit the majority of our countrymen. In your e-mail, you seek clarification on PITC’s legal mandate, vis-à-vis Section 10 of the Generics Act of 1988.
In response to your query, please be informed of the following:
1. Under Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution, the government is mandated to “…adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and other social services available to all people at affordable cost …”
2. In order to “[r]educe by half the cost of medicines through increased and improved distribution importation through PITC and local sourcing, partnership with the pharmaceutical Industry, resolution of patent issues increased use of generic products, community based initiatives”[1] and consistent with the earlier quoted provision of the Constitution, the President issued Executive Order No. 442 on July 4, 2005, designating PITC as the lead coordinating agency to make quality medicines available, affordable and accessible to the greater masses of Filipinos.
3. PITC, as an agency under the Office of the President, is mandated under Section 1, EO 442, to “…establish retail outlets nationwide and supply these outlets with low priced quality medicines…”
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, while Section 10 of the Generics Act of 1988 authorizes the Department of Health to import raw materials for the use of Filipino-owned or controlled drug establishments to be marketed and sold exclusively under generic nomenclature during periods of critical shortage and absolute necessity, PITC’s mandate is distinct from, and is not precluded by, said Section 10.
We hope to have clarified matters.
_________________
* http://www.pitc.gov.ph/mandates.html
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Dr. Kenneth speaks
"Imagine a doctor who made a mistake, and then there are no pharmacists to countercheck or provide warnings to patients and consumers."
- Dr. Kenneth Y. Hartigan Go
As quoted in the article "Dispensing doctors? A controversy in the offing."Medical Observer vol. 6 no. 6 June 1997:29-31.