The day at the pharmacy was
long and hectic. Customer lines were
endless and the phones rang constantly. In the middle of all this confusion, Bill, the
supervising pharmacist, checked the name, route of administration, dose, and strength
of every prescription before it went to the consumer. During his shift, he managed two five-minute bathroom
breaks and ate a snack behind the counter.
Unfortunately, he also missed a technician’s error and gave one patient
the wrong medication.
When the patient discovered
the mistake, he contacted the Pharmacy Board and filed a complaint against Bill
and the pharmacy. Upon learning of the complaint,
the pharmacy told Bill not to worry about it.
The pharmacy’s lawyer would represent them both at no cost to Bill. Relieved
that he wouldn’t have to pay a hefty legal fee, Bill set up an appointment with
his new attorney.
At the beginning of their
meeting, the lawyer said that Bill would have to sign a conflict of interest
waiver. Although the attorney tried to
explain the waiver, the legal jargon was confusing. Still worried about the cost of hiring his
own lawyer, Bill signed the form.
The lawyer asked how the medication
error occurred. The pharmacist began describing the working
conditions at the pharmacy. It was
significantly understaffed. This
resulted in an impossible workload for the technicians and the pharmacist. Before he could further explain, the lawyer
interrupted him saying that he couldn’t discuss those kinds of factors because
it would hurt the pharmacy. Suddenly Bill
understood the form he had signed. He
concluded the interview and hired his own attorney.
Representing both Bill and the
pharmacy put the attorney in a classic conflict of interest. If he offered evidence of poor working
conditions, he would help the pharmacist.
But that same evidence would reflect badly on the pharmacy. By helping one client, he would injure the
other.
The pharmacist wisely chose
to hire someone else. His new lawyer did
offer the evidence of poor working conditions.
For his part, the pharmacy’s attorney argued that the pharmacy provided
an exemplary work setting. Fortunately
for Bill, the Board agreed with him about the working conditions. Bill kept his license.
While Bill fared much better
with his own lawyer, he was out several thousand dollars in attorney fees. Unfortunately, he did not have his own
liability insurance. That insurance
would have paid most of his defense costs.
When the pharmacy hired Bill, it assured him that he was covered under
their policy. Relying on that assurance,
Bill had not purchased his own coverage.
The pharmacist learned many
important lessons from the experience.
First, a health care provider needs individual insurance that covers
licensure disputes.
Second, it is dangerous to
work in an understaffed facility. Before
the drug error, Bill felt good about doing all he could to help the pharmacy
succeed despite the staffing problem. He
happily skipped breaks, worked overtime, and tried to be as efficient as
possible. He cared about his patients, employer, and coworkers. He thought he could safely meet his
employer’s expectations.
He now understands that lack
of adequate staffing will cause even the best pharmacist to make mistakes. He maintains adequate insurance
coverage. Before taking on a new job, he
checks out staffing and other working conditions. He also talks with former facility employees
to determine the level of support provided by the company.
These are lessons that can
benefit all licensed health care employees.
Please consider obtaining your own professional insurance coverage. Remember that you must take care of yourself
in order to take care of those who need you.
