A pharmacist who persistently failed to achieve proper standards has had his name removed from the register by order of the Statutory Committee. The chairman described the case as the worst case that the Statutory Committee had seen.
At its meeting on February 17, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Stuart Malcolm Blake, of 4 Magazine Lane, New Brighton, Wirral, Merseyside. Information had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society which alleged misconduct such that Mr Blake was unfit to remain on the register. The elements of the alleged misconduct were:
Mr D. Bradly, of counsel, instructed by Mr Geoffrey Hudson, of Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to place the fact of the case before the Committee.
Mr Blake was not present and was not represented.
The committee heard that in April, 1997, a complaint had been received by the Society that date-expired Durogesic patches had been supplied against a National Health Service prescription on March 8, 1997. The patches had been removed from their original container and supplied in a plain, white carton. As a result, the Society's inspector had visited the premises and had found (i) an original manufacturer's carton of Durogesic patches which should have contained five patches but contained 10 patches, some of which bore the same expiry date as those dispensed on March 8, and (ii) a carton of the same product with handwriting on it, which Mr Blake told the inspector was a patient return awaiting destruction. It had also been found that the supply of Durogesic made on March 8 had not been entered in the Controlled Drugs register.
The committee also heard that on three occasions a Society inspector or a member of staff had attended Mr Blake's pharmacy and had found it open and trading without a pharmacist being present. (Members of Mr Blake's staff had told the inspector that the premises were sometimes open for long periods without a pharmacist being present.)
On May 14, 1997, an inspector and the Society's head of pharmacy law had visited Mr Blake's premises and, during a routine inspection, had found a large quantity of drugs in the dispensary area that appeared to be patients' returns. Temazepam tablets had been found among these, when they should have been in the Controlled Drugs cabinet. Mr Blake had admitted that some of the items were patient returns intended for destruction but he could not explain why the products were arranged alphabetically among the dispensary stocks. (Former members of Mr Blake's staff had told the inspector that they were encouraged to use patient returns when dispensing prescriptions.)
Poor physical standards
Also on the May 14 visit, the physical standards at the premises had been found to be poor. Much of the premises were untidy and cluttered, including the dispensary areas. There was poor attention to hygiene, with stock stored in the toilet areas. The refrigerator was heavily frosted. Waste medicines were not segregated from dispensary stock.
There was evidence of the preparation and consumption of food in one of the rooms used for the assembly of monitored dosage system trays, and staff assembling the trays were seen to be counting medicines and placing them in the trays with their bare hands.
The committee also heard that, at a time when Mr Blake's premises had been removed from the register for non-payment of fees, some 676 prescriptions had been dispensed. Also, when questioned about professional indemnity insurance on applying for restoration of the premises, Mr Blake had told the Society that such cover was in place, when in fact it was not.
The Committee was reminded that it had reprimanded Mr Blake on three previous occasions. In November, 1985, he had been reprimanded on a matter relating to lack of supervision. In July, 1988, he had been reprimanded for misconduct relating to canvassing. And in June, 1991, he had been reprimanded on matters concerning the way he managed, administered and kept records in his pharmacy.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said that Mr Blake's case "in its breadth and depth and persistent defaulting and failure to achieve proper standards is the worst case we have ever had on this Statutory Committee". He said that it demonstrated an attitude of mind and an approach that was grossly unprofessional and was seriously dangerous to members of the public and to the honour and dignity of the profession.
Referring to Mr Blake's previous reprimands, the chairman said that any pharmacist of normal discretion and resolution would have learnt his lesson. But when the evidence of the present case was given, "all of us realised that here was a pharmacist who pursued his own path, who did as it suited him and who had little or no heed when it was inconvenient to him to pay attention to the way a pharmacist should behave. His case is a catalogue of misconduct going right across the board of professional pharmaceutical conduct."
He went on: "The Society and indeed the profession knows with pride that any member of the public walking into a any pharmacy in Britain feels a sense of reassurance that all is well behind the counter, that all is well in the dispensary. If the matter be tested in Mr Blake's case and an inquisitive member of the public went backstage and saw the chaos, the confusion, the storage facilities, the lack of method and the could-not-care-less attitude that is apparent . . . what would that inquisitive member of the public think? We think the member of the public would never go in there again and it is for the Society, its inspectors and all concerned, which includes our own committee, to see to it that what the patient cannot see is in a good, regular and wholesome condition and, if it is not, then this committee must take a tough view about any pharmacy which carries on in that state."
Ordering that Mr Blake's name be struck from the register, the chairman said that it was difficult to contemplate any application for restoration by Mr Blake in the future being successful. Mr Blake had three months to appeal against the committee's decision.
Change of ownership of premises
When buying a pharmacy business the purchaser must contact the Royal Pharmaceutical Society prior to taking over the business to obtain the necessary "Application for transfer of ownership" form. Until this form is completed and returned to the Society, the Register will continue to show the premises as registered by the previous owner.
|
A Yorkshire pharmacist convicted of false imprisonment and assault occasioning actual bodily harm has had his name removed from the register by order of the Statutory Committee.
At its meeting on March 16, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Mohammed Arif, of 6 Savile Park Street, Halifax, West Yorkshire.
Information had been received that on June 4, 1998, at Bradford crown court, Mr Arif had pleaded guilty to and had been convicted of the offences and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
Mr G. R. F. Hudson, of Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.
Mr D. Aaronberg (instructed by Charles Russell, solicitors) appeared as counsel on behalf of Mr Arif, who was present.
The committee heard that the victim in each case had been Mr Arif's wife, who had been severely beaten by Mr Arif and kept as a virtual prisoner in her own home over a two-year period. The assault had resulted in a three-day hospital stay.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said: "We are concerned about the dignity and the honour of this profession. . . . In the forefront of our minds we have to recognise that this is a health-caring profession. To deal with any other human being in the way that Mr Arif has done is completely inconsistent with the norms of this profession. This profession seeks to treat people with decency and humanity and with compassionate dignity."
The chairman said that there was a distasteful unwholesomeness about the case and the profession had to distance itself from it. "We have to send the message out that this sort of behaviour is totally unacceptable. It is an affront to human dignity."
He went on: "We have in the past had cases which have involved serious misbehaviour in the private lives of pharmacists of a kind which throws such disrepute upon the profession that we have felt it necessary to distance ourselves from it." Sometimes that misbehaviour had no bearing on skill in the dispensary, but it demonstrated a deficiency of character which, the committee believed, was relevant to the practice of pharmacy and the maintenance of professional standards.
Ordering the removal of Mr Arif's name from the register, the chairman said: "This misconduct can never be tolerated within the ranks of this profession."
Mr Arif had three months to appeal against the committee's decision.
Theft and possession of methadone have resulted in a striking-off order being made by the Statutory Committee against a Yorkshire pharmacist.
At its meeting on March 17, the committee inquired into the case of Mr John Buchanan, of 466 Idle Road, Bradford, West Yorkshire. Information had been received that on November 5, 1998, at Bradford crown court, Mr Buchanan had pleaded guilty to and had been convicted of theft and of the possession of a Class A drug, namely, methadone. For these he had been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment suspended for two years.
Mr G. R. F. Hudson, of Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.
Mr Buchanan was not present and was not represented.
The committee heard that at the time of the offence Mr Buchanan had a 42 per cent interest in the Wrose health centre in Bradford. The centre was managed by a pharmacist. Towards the end of July, 1998, the pharmacist and a detective sergeant had become aware that methadone was going missing from the pharmacy's Controlled Drugs cabinet. One Friday evening, a full stock check had been carried out. Mr Buchanan was working in the pharmacy the next day. Another full stock check was carried out first thing on the following Monday morning and one 30ml bottle of methadone had been found to be missing.
Mr Buchanan had been arrested for theft and unlawful possession after a search of his home, during which the missing methadone bottle had been discovered. Mr Buchanan had drunk the contents and had admitted to police that he was a methadone addict.
Prosecution had followed.
The committee also heard that Mr Buchanan had appeared before it in July, 1984, when a direction had been made to remove his name from the register. That inquiry had also concerned Controlled Drugs and Mr Buchanan's addiction to them. Mr Buchanan had been restored to the register in 1996, at which time he had assured the committee that he would not let it down.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said that the fact that the committee had been let down would not reduce its willingness to give encouragement to people who were seriously ill. But in this case there could only be one answer: Mr Buchanan's name would be removed from the register.
The chairman went on to direct that the superintendent pharmacists of Mr Buchanan's businesses (of which there were seven) should report to the committee what steps they were taking to ensure that Mr Buchanan would never have access to addictive drugs on his own. He was sure that the superintendents would wish to make arrangements to prevent any repetition of what was not only a sad but equally a thoroughly disgraceful episode.
Mr Buchanan had three month to appeal against the decision.
A London pharmacist who stole medicines from his employer has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee.
At its meeting on March 16, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Deepak Shah, of 22 Fallow Court Avenue, London N12.
Information had been received that on October 12, 1997, at North Hertfordshire division magistrates' court, Mr Shah had pleaded guilty to and had been convicted of stealing 24 tablets of ibuprofen, 28 tablets of Voltarol 75mg and 100ml of castor oil to a value of £8.51 from Tesco Stores Ltd. For that he had been fined £1,000 and ordered to pay costs of £54.
Mr G. R. F. Hudson, of Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.
Mr Shah was present at the inquiry but was not represented.
The committee heard that Mr Shah had been employed as a locum at the Tesco store at Royston, Hertfordshire, at the time of the theft. On July 17, 1997, he had been searched as part of company policy by the store manager and it was during the search that the stolen items had been found. The police had been called and Mr Shah was arrested. Prosecution had followed.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said: "What a silly offence. . . . We have decided that we find the misconduct proved."
He said that while the committee thoroughly detested dishonesty, which was what theft was, and invariably struck people off the register so that the public would always have confidence in pharmacists, the committee was prepared to make an exception in Mr Shah's case. The committee believed that Mr Shah had learnt a lot and would not be appearing before it again. The case would be disposed of by way of a reprimand.
A pharmacist who stole a cheque book and cheque guarantee card and used them to purchase goods has had his name removed from the register by order of the Statutory Committee.
At its meeting on April 30, the Committee inquired into the case of Mr Robert Omosigho Ehigie Imafidon, of 313 Fulham Court, Fulham Road, London SW6.
Information had been received that on January 29, 1998, at Harrow magistrates' court, Mr Imafidon had pleaded guilty to and had been convicted of two offences under the Theft Act 1968 (stealing a cheque book and a cheque guarantee card) and three offences under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 (using the stolen items to buy goods on three occasions). Ten other matters had been taken into consideration. For these, on February 19, 1998, Mr Imafidon had been fined a total of £950.
Mr G. F. R. Hudson, instructed by Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the Committee.
Mr Imafidon was present and was represented by Mr S. Lesson, instructed by Cheek, Lesson & Co (solicitors).
The committee heard that Mr Imafidon and the victim of the theft had lived in the same building when the items were stolen. All residents in the building shared the same letter box and a communal hallway.
At some point at the beginning of 1996, the victim did not receive a new cheque book that he had been expecting. Assuming it had been lost in the post, he telephoned his bank which sent him a new one.
Later, in about February, 1997, after Mr Imafidon had moved out of the premises, the victim had found some correspondence addressed to him in the room formerly occupied by Mr Imafidon. One was a piece of card on which had been a cheque guarantee card. The victim had then telephoned his bank and a replacement card was sent.
A few months later, around June, 1997, the victim went to a cash point and found the balance on his account to be much lower than he expected. When he received his next bank statement he noticed items on it that he did not recognise.
Arrested
The victim then reported the matter to the police who contacted Mr Imafidon. During a search of his new property, the police found the victim's cheque book. Mr Imafidon was arrested and interviewed, and admitted that he had signed and used the victim's cheques and had signed the cheque card.
The cheque card was not found by the police, but Mr Imafidon stated that he had destroyed it.
Giving the Committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said that over many years the committee had consistently set its face against dishonesty and had invariably taken the severest view of a pharmacist who crossed that threshold.
"We are here to protect the public," he said. "The public must enter a pharmacy in the confident belief that when they do they can trust the pharmacist, even though they have never met him and know nothing about him at all."
The committee was also there to protect the honour and dignity of the profession and dishonesty did not lie with the professionalism that was required of a pharmacist.
Ordering the removal of Mr Imafidon's name from the register, the chairman told Mr Imafidon that what he had done was "very silly". He advised him to keep up with pharmacy as, at some stage, the committee expected to him to apply to be restored to the register.
Mr Imafidon had three months to appeal against the committee's decision.
The actions of a former pharmacist - one whose name had been removed from the register by order of the Statutory Committee in 1997 - have led the committee to award a reprimand against his company. The former pharmacist, however, has been restored to the register.
At its meeting on April 28, the committee inquired into the cases of S. K. Roy Dispensing Chemists Ltd and Mr Senat Kumar Roy, who was applying to have his name restored to the register.
Information had been received that on July 28, 1998, at Southampton and New Forest magistrates' court, the company had pleaded guilty to and had been convicted of two offences of selling medicinal products not on a general sale list without the supervision of a pharmacist, contrary to the Medicines Act 1968. For these the company had been fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs. The sales had been made by Mr Roy, who at the time was not a registered pharmacist. Mr Roy had been prosecuted and found guilty of the same offences and he, too, was fined £2,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 costs.
Mr D. Bradly, of counsel, instructed by Walker Martineau (solicitors), appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.
Mr D. Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors), appeared on behalf of the company and Mr Roy, who was present.
The committee heard that the offences had occurred one Sunday morning before the superintendent pharmacist had arrived for work. Mr Roy and the superintendent pharmacist were both directors of the company. Mr Roy had dispensed a prescription and sold a pharmacy medicine to a Royal Pharmaceutical Society inspector while no registered pharmacist was on the premises. He admitted to the committee that he should not have made the sale.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said that to act as a pharmacist while struck off was just about the most stupid thing that Mr Roy could have done. He said: "Mr Roy . . . will realise that to act like this suggests that you are contemptuous of the Statutory Committee, and the Statutory Committee's powers are such that it will check in a very severe way anything which smacks of contempt. . . . Woe betide anyone who does this."
But the committee did not think Mr Roy was contemptuous, only stupid and under some commercial pressure. Referring to the total fines of £6,000, the chairman said that Mr Roy had paid a heavy price for it.
Concluding, the chairman said that the company would be reprimanded and that Mr Roy's application for restoration would be allowed. He warned Mr Roy to be careful of appearing before the committee again; the committee was not welcoming of people who committed a series of errors.
A locum pharmacist convicted of causing a traffic accident while drunk has been admonished by the Statutory Committee.
The case against Mr Royce David Hutt, of Tanner Row Apartments, 43 Tanner Row, York, arose out of a road traffic accident in February, 1997. The result of that had been that Mr Hutt was convicted on March 4, 1997, at the sheriff court of Tayside, Central and Fife at Dundee under the Road Traffic Act 1988. He had been fined £700 and disqualified from driving for two years.
When the case first came before the Statutory Committee, on February 19, 1998, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) expressed the committee's concern that Mr Hutt might have a drink problem. He adjourned the hearing until March 17, 1998, at which time he adjourned the meeting again for a further year to allow Mr Hutt's progress to be properly monitored.
Giving the committee's final decision on April 30, 1999, the chairman said that the committee was greatly pleased by Mr Hutt's progress and would now cease any form of monitoring. But finding the earlier misconduct proved, he admonished Mr Hutt.
Mr Hutt was present throughout the hearing and was represented by Mr G. Stowe, of Grahame Stowe, Bateson (solicitors). Mr M. Seligman, of counsel, and Mr G. F. R. Hudson (Walker Martineau, solicitors) presented the facts of the case to the committee.