Группа авторов

Fundamentals of Pharmacology


Скачать книгу

MIMS, how are you able to search for a drug?By drug nameBy conditionBy manufacturerAll of the above

      8 What does the abbreviation p.c. mean?Before foodWith foodAfter food

      9 Where will you find the “blacklist”?Within the BNFWithin the Drug TariffWithin NICE

      10 On a device, what does the CE mark signify?That the device has been tried and tested and is safe to useThat the device can be prescribedThat the device has copyright protection

      11 How often is the Drug Tariff updated?ContinuallyWeeklyMonthly

      12 Which document informs healthcare professionals on how to prescribe and use a medicine correctly?A clinical trial paperProduct informationSummaries of product characteristics

      13 A PIL is a medicine leaflet written for whom?Healthcare professionalsPharmacy staffPatients

      14 Where will you find the most up‐to‐date information about the use of medicines?BNF/MIMS paper copyBNF/MIMS onlineNICE guidance

      15 You find an outdated BNF being used within a clinical area, what should you do?Nothing, it is still safe to use an outdated BNFNothing, as it is not your place to say anythingSpeak to a senior member of staff to get it replaced with an up‐to‐date version

      Claire Leader, Emma Senior and Deborah Flynn

      The aim of this chapter is to examine the legal and ethical considerations that are related to pharmacology and medicines management in contemporary healthcare settings.

      Learning outcomes

      By the end of this chapter, the reader will be able to:

      1 Define commonly used legal and ethical concepts

      2 Identify situations where legal and ethical considerations are required to make defensible decisions

      3 Explain how legal and ethical considerations influence the decision‐making process

      4 Apply legal and ethical considerations to a variety of scenarios likely to be encountered in modern healthcare settings

      Test your knowledge

      1 According to UK law, what must be established in order to prove a case of negligence?

      2 Can a wife consent to treatment on behalf of their husband who lacks capacity?

      3 What is the meaning of beneficence in relation to ethics?

      4 Can healthcare professionals provide treatment for children without the consent of their responsible parent in an emergency situation?

      5 What is a professional body's primary function?

      Any decisions made about pharmacology require consideration of various issues: what you are legally obliged to do, what you are professionally guided to do and what is in the best interests of the person within the situation. In practice, the three usually exist together; but before considering them as a whole, let's start with the fundamentals and look at them separately.

      This chapter will consider the three components that underpin high‐quality decision‐making in pharmacology:

       the law

       ethical principles and theories

       regulatory bodies.

      Laws exist to protect patients and the public. Recent years have seen changes in the culture within healthcare in the United Kingdom (UK), with a notable rise in litigation. Unlike some countries, where there is a ‘no‐blame’ process for medico‐legal cases, the UK system operates a ‘fault criterion’ whereby fault has to be established for the complainant to prove a case. Clinical negligence claims quadrupled between 2007 and 2017 (National Health Service Improvement (NHSI), 2019) leading to an exponential growth in the number of cases involving healthcare professionals who are forced to defend their practice in a court setting. Failing to monitor a particular drug therapy, failure to recognise the prescription of a contraindicated drug, failure to warn patients of adverse effects and neglecting to protect a patient from harm are all examples of pharmacology cases whereby blame could be laid. As our professional remit grows, so does the legal expectation. Given the amount of resources and information health professionals have access to, the defence of lack of knowledge is wholly insufficient.

      Laws originate from two sources: Common Law, sometimes referred to as ‘Case’ Law, and Statute Law known as ‘Acts of Parliament’.

      Common Law or Case Law refers to cases that are tried in courts of law, whereby a judge will give rule to a set of legal precedents. Common Law is constantly changing due to the ways in which judges interpret the law and use their knowledge of legal precedent and common sense as well as applying the facts of the case. Common Law safeguards that the law remains common throughout the land, and can be divided into either Criminal or Civil Law.

      Statute Law or Acts of Parliament is law which is written down and codified into law. Acts begin as bills which then become Acts once the bills have been heard and possibly amended in the House of Commons and House of Lords before receiving ‘Royal Assent’. The Acts can either be private or public. Private Acts may apply to detailed locations within the UK or they may grant specific powers to public bodies, such as local authorities. Public Acts are the laws that affect the whole of the UK or one or more of its constituent countries: England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

      Clinical considerations: The Bolam test

      The majority of litigation in relation to medical malpractice comes under the category of negligence.

      When considering cases of clinical negligence, courts will assess whether the health professional or organisation in question acted in line with the practice accepted as proper by a body of health professionals specialising in the specific field under scrutiny. This is known as the ‘Bolam’ test. The case (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, 1957), involved a patient who had suffered a fractured hip during electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). No relaxant or other restraint had been given to the patient in preparation for the treatment. The case explored this, along with the information the patient had been offered. The question was asked of a group of similar professionals and it was assessed that the practitioner had not been negligent as he had acted in accordance with accepted