A Dorset pharmacist who had not adequately complied with undertakings to correct faults in his computer and stock control systems, and who dispensed expired medicines, has been reprimanded by order of the Statutory Committee.
At its meeting on May 17, the committee concluded an inquiry into the case of Mr Anilkumar Ishverbhai Patel, joint owner of a pharmacy at 960 Wimborne Road, Bournemouth, Dorset.
The inquiry had opened on November 18, 1998, as the result of a complaint received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which alleged misconduct such as to render Mr Patel unfit to be on the register. On that date, Mr M. Seligman, of counsel, instructed by Mr G. Hudson, of Walker Martineau (solicitors), had appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee. Mr Patel had been present and was represented by Mr D. Aaronberg, of counsel, instructed by Charles Russell (solicitors).
The committee heard on November 18, 1998, that, following an investigation into an earlier complaint, Mr Patel had given an undertaking that his computer, which had developed a fault in October, 1996, would be mended without delay. He had also undertaken to provide locum pharmacists with instructions for operating the computer system, including the procedure dealing with owing items, and to consider ways of improving his dispensing and stock control system. On the basis of that undertaking, given on April 20, 1997, the matter had been dealt with by way of a formal warning.
Then, on May 16, 1997, two packs of seven Losartan 25mg tablets had been supplied to a patient against a prescription for 56 tablets, the patient being told that there were more packs to follow. The two packs supplied had been "squashed and dog-eared", one tablet had been missing and both packs had expired at end of November, 1996. The remaining packs had been supplied to the patient later, unlabelled.
On inquiry by one of the Society's inspectors on July 16, 1997, Mr Patel had been unable to state who the pharmacist in charge had been on May 16. With regard to the unlabelled balance of Losartan tablets, there was no date of dispensing available as the computer patient medication records were corrupted. Mr Patel had admitted that he sometimes put back into stock patient returns if they were unopened and not tampered with.
It had been alleged that failure to comply with the undertakings given, the supply of damaged, incomplete, unlabelled and out-of-date containers of medicines, and the practice of reusing patient-returned medicines might amount to misconduct that would render Mr Patel unfit to be on the register.
The inspector had said he had visited Mr Patel's pharmacy on November 3, 1998 [the month of the hearing] and had found a number of pharmacy medicines in the self-service area and nine date-expired items in the dispensary. Mr Patel had said that the staff must have put the P medicines on the counter and that out-of-date stock should be removed by the stocktaker. The next stock take, the inspector had been told, was due the following year.
The chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said on November 18, 1998, that Mr Patel had not complied with the undertakings he had given. With regard to the outdated items and the P medicines on open sale, Mr Patel had been too quick to blame others. It was a pharmacist's job to see that the stock was in order. And the matter of the faulty computer had not been resolved.
The committee had decided to adjourn the case on the following terms. Mr Patel would:
Mr Patel was also required to update his registered address.
The inquiry was reopened on April 29, 1999. On that date, one of the Society's inspectors gave evidence that a new computer had been installed and appeared to be working satisfactorily. A diary system had been started for identifying the pharmacist on duty, and had been kept up to date. He had advised Mr Patel on the setting up of a regular and systematic stock control system, which seemed to be working satisfactorily. No outdated stock had been seen, and short-dated items had been highlighted. There had been no evidence on his recent visits that unlabelled medicines had been supplied.
After the committee had retired for deliberation, the chairman (Mr Gary Flather, QC) said that members of the committee were satisfied that their directions had been complied with so far. However, there had been a history in this case of non-compliance. They thought it was, therefore, appropriate to adjourn the case for 12 months before giving their decision. If Mr Patel continued to comply with the committee's recommendations, he could legitimately expect to be reprimanded.
Finally, at the resumed inquiry on May 17, 2000, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that it was clear from the inspector's report that Mr Patel had largely met the conditions that had been set out for him.
Mr Patel was ordered to be reprimanded, and the case was concluded.