An Ipswich pharmacist who allowed his pharmacy
to trade without a pharmacist in personal control and whose dispensary shelves
contained unlabelled or inadequately labelled medicines has been reprimanded
by the Statutory Committee.
At its meeting on July 11, the committee inquired into the case of Mr Punil
Thakrar, of 64 St Matthews Street, Ipswich, Suffolk, and proprietor of a pharmacy
at 18 Norwich Road, Ipswich. A complaint had been received from the Council
of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society which alleged that the pharmacy had been
trading without a pharmacist in control on two dates in January, 1999, that
a member of staff had been instructed to remove tablets from monitored dosage
system (MDS) trays, including trays returned from homes, and that the presence
of unlabelled or inadequately labelled containers and containers containing
mixed batches of medicines on dispensary shelves might constitute such misconduct
as to render Mr Thakrar unfit to have his name on the register.
Mr D. Bradly, of counsel, instructed by Mr G. R. F. Hudson, of Pennington's
(solicitors), appeared in order to present the facts of the case to the committee.
Mr Thakrar was present at the inquiry and was represented by Mr D. Reissner,
of Charles Russell (solicitors).
The committee heard that, when two of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's inspectors
visited Mr Thakrar's pharmacy on January 16, 1999, they had found the premises
staffed only by a young, female, part-time assistant but were able to purchase
Strepsil Zinc Defence lozenges. A request to purchase Codis tablets was refused.
The assistant told the inspectors that no pharmacist would be present that day,
and that there had been no pharmacist on the two previous Saturdays. In the
dispensary were a number of monitored dosage system trays from which the assistant
had been removing tablets. She said she had been told by Mr Thakrar to place
the tablets she removed into dispensing containers. On the dispensary shelves
were about 160 containers, which were inadequately labelled, containing tablets.
Mr Thakrar told the committee that he spent most of his time at another pharmacy
he owned in Ipswich. He said that the assistant had not been asked to open the
shop to the public and that a locum pharmacist was expected, but would be "late".
He said that, so far as he was aware, the "closed" sign was left on the door
and the lights switched off. The sealer for the MDS trays from which the tablets
were being removed had been faulty, he said, although he accepted that some
trays had been returned from homes.
Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC)
said that the committee did not believe that the locum pharmacist concerned
had undertaken to provide pharmacy cover on the day in question. It was clear
that Mr Thakrar had known that the assistant was alone in the pharmacy. Nor
did the committee accept that there was an arrangement to turn off the lights
and have a notice indicating the premises were closed. There was evidence that
members of the public had been able to gain access, as had the inspectors. In
all the circumstances, the committee concluded that Mr Thakrar had been trading
without a pharmacist in personal control. That was clearly a serious matter.
Set aside
The second allegation, namely, instructing a member of staff to remove tablets
from MSD trays, including trays returned from homes, was set aside by the committee.
There was no evidence to show that the assistant had been specifically instructed
to remove tablets from trays including those returned from homes. And the act
of removing tablets would not of itself amount to misconduct. If, for example,
the next step were to be disposal, it would have been an appropriate course.
If there had been an allegation that Mr Thakrar had instructed the assistant
to remove the tablets from the trays with the intention of reusing them for
dispensing prescriptions, that would have been a different matter, but that
was not the allegation the committee was dealing with.
The presence on the dispensary shelves of unlabelled or inadequately labelled
containers of mixed medicines was, however, a serious matter. It was not "simply
an item of poor housekeeping by a pharmacist within a pharmacy". There was a
significant number of containers, more than 150, neatly arranged in alphabetical
order. There was no evidence that those medicines had been used to make up other
prescriptions but it was not difficult to envisage circumstances in which, intentionally
or unintentionally, a locum or other pharmacist might have used them. They were
not located in such a way that the next step for them would inevitably have
been appropriate disposal.
The committee concluded that the two allegations found proven were sufficient
to amount to a degree of misconduct such that it rendered Mr Thakrar liable
to be removed from the register. However, Mr Thakrar had given his assistant
instructions not to give out prescriptions or other medicines that could only
be handed over by a pharmacist. Steps had been taken to close the pharmacy on
Saturdays and its sale was imminent. The committee therefore considered whether
some lesser penalty than removal could be imposed. The only remedies available
to the committee, said the chairman, were removal or reprimand. In those circumstances
the committee ordered that Mr Thakrar should be reprimanded.