The Story Behind the Pharmacists Mutual Claims Study 

In 1989, Pharmacists Mutual realized that it had information crucial to pharmacists who wanted to identify the risks they faced when practicing pharmacy.  In addition, Pharmacists Mutual had information that was not generally available elsewhere.  Professional liability claims were being reported to Pharmacists Mutual from all areas of pharmacy practice: community pharmacies (both independent and chain), hospitals, long-term care and home health care settings.  This claims information was also being reported from various areas of the country.  All claims were included in the study regardless of the amount of loss paid.  Indeed, some claims were successfully defended with no payment.  Even mere allegations that were closed without payment were included in the study.  It was decided to analyze this information for the benefit of the pharmacy profession and, if claims could be reduced, for the benefit of Pharmacists Mutual as well. A distinction should be made at this point.  This is a claims study, not an error study. 

The claims were then assigned to a group according to the allegations made.  The classifications are: wrong drug, wrong strength, wrong directions, non-bodily injury, drug review, counseling, safety caps, illegal activities, generic substitution, and excessive refill.  Compounding was added in 1998 due to a resurgence of compounding in pharmacy and the fact that some circumstances involving compounded prescriptions did not precisely fit in the existing categories.  Occasionally a claim could be assigned to more than one category.  In that case, the claim was assigned to the category that was judged to be the most significant or the category that was alleged by the claimant. 

The first three categories (wrong drug, wrong strength and wrong directions) collectively were designated as mechanical errors.  The remainder of the categories were designated as intellectual errors.  These are claims that involve professional judgment.