Study Set Content:
have changed as a result.
• Other cases are finding pharmacists have a
responsibility for
patient counseling and drug
therapy monitoring.
the pharmacy
promised in its advertising that its computer system
would detect drug interactions or warn patients
about adverse drug reactions; the pharmacists
were held liable when they failed to detect and
warn the patient of a potential adverse reaction.
Sanderson v. Eckerd Corporation,
the court imposed a duty on a
pharmacist to alert the prescriber when the dose
prescribed is outside the therapeutic range.
Horner v. Spalitto,
the pharmacy’s
computer system was overridden, and the
pharmacist failed to warn a patient allergic to
aspirin and ibuprofen of the potential for cross
allergenicity with ketorolac. The court found the
pharmacist has a duty to warn when a
contraindicated drug is prescribed.
In Happel v. Wal Mart Stores
where the plaintiffs
alleged that the pharmacist’s failure to properly
warn of the known dangers of desipramine was the
proximate cause of the patient’s death, the court
held that pharmacists have a duty beyond
accurately filling a prescription “based on known
contraindications, which would alert a reasonably
prudent pharmacist to a potential problem.” 27
However, the court did not find for the plaintiff
opining that pharmacist do not have knowledge
that desipramine may cause hypereosinophilic
syndrome.
Morgan v. Wal Mart Stores,
the pharmacist dispensed
an otic solution without warning of the risk of
tympanic membrane rupture and the need to
discontinue the drug if certain symptoms
appeared. The plaintiff claimed that because of
the lack of warning he suffered from severe and
permanent injury including brain damage.
Heredia v. Johnson,
“false information provided to another could result
in harm to the recipient if the recipient acted
relying on the false information”
INAPPROPRITATE QUALITY INFORMATION
“One who negligently gives false
information to another is subject to liability
for physical harm caused by action taken
by the other in reasonable reliance upon
such information[...] Such negligence may
consist of failure to exercise reasonable
care in ascertaining accuracy of the
information, or in the manner in which it is
communicated.”
Restatement (Second) of Torts, Negligent
Misrepresentation Involving Risk of Physical Harm
Drug information may be faulty for one or more
reasons:
it may be dated; it may simply be wrong; it
may be incomplete and, therefore, misleading; or
none may have been provided because of an
incomplete search or incompetent searcher.
Inappropriate quality information may occur
because references are updated
differently
Even electronic references are updated differently
some monthly, others
weekly
Most DI services require documentation of an
answer in at least()different sources.
two
Checking a DI response in () references is the
standard of practice.
several
Information negligence
Parameter negligence:
Omission negligence:
failure to consult
the correct source
Parameter negligence:
consulting the
correct source, but failure to locate the
correct answer[s]
Omission negligence:
occurs when a
pharmaceutical company develops the
concept for an article to counteract
criticism of a drug or embellish its benefits,
hires a professional writing company to
draft the article, retains a health
professional to sign off as the author, and
finds a publisher to unwittingly publish the
work.
Ghostwriting
An unskilled searcher or one with insufficient
searching knowledge may not find correct or
complete information, which can lead to the
() answer.
wrong
The fault can lie() in the information
dissemination chain, publication, collection,
storage, retrieval, dissemination, or utilization.
anywhere
Errors are often encountered in DI databases; DI
pharmacists are constantly finding () and
reporting the errors to the vendor or publisher.
errors
