Chege

I would look at it this way: what makes it a valid medication error, and who certified it as an error? Because we must be true to ourselves that, in the medical field, the person standing next to a mortality case is almost always the one held responsible, even when there may be other reasons. I am not ignoring the possibility, but you know that even with a pharmacist or MPharm qualification, or even consultant status, errors happen. Consider the Aga Khan case where a pediatric consultant failed to diagnose meningitis and instead opted for psychosis: kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment…. Restrictions play a role in patient safety; however, training and apprenticeships would make healthcare more accessible and affordable. We are in a tech-crowded era, and depending largely on human qualifications alone is not only archaic but also eluding reality. Using technology, pharmtechs would do a fantastic job as long as they are trained to use technology in their work. This does not necessarily mean replacing pharmacists. It means creating a system where different levels of healthcare workers can perform different tasks based on their training, competence, technology available to them, and the level of risk involved. Not every pharmaceutical task requires the same level of expertise. Routine and well-defined tasks can be supported by technology and handled by appropriately trained pharmtechs, while pharmacists can concentrate on more sophisticated clinical decisions, high-risk medicines, unusual cases, drug interactions and situations that genuinely require their expertise. Not a blanket application in the name of "New policies". The question therefore should not simply be who has the highest qualification, but who is competent to perform a particular task safely, what technology is available to support that task, and where professional supervision is actually necessary. This means pharmacists and above would also have to be trained on more sophisticated technology to handle the even more sophisticated duties, rather than simply developing policies around who is allowed to do what. The result of excessive restriction is that we may create human resource gaps that we cannot fill. And that makes it even more difficult to say we are saving people when more people cannot access the basic services that an average pharmtech would provide. Qualifications are important, but qualifications are not a guarantee that an error will never happen. Equally, having a lower qualification does not automatically mean that someone cannot safely perform a defined task, especially where there is proper training, technology, protocols and supervision. At what point does restricting who can provide a basic service in the name of safety itself become a patient-safety problem, when the result is that the service is no longer accessible to the people who need it?

Open sesame, I just want to congratulate the team 😂😂