The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7177 p833-834
8 December 2001

Striking-off for Controlled Drug offences A London pharmacist who had been convicted of supplying Controlled Drugs in a single quantity instead of instalments, as prescribed, and of failing to store methadone in a locked cabinet, has been ordered by the Statutory Committee to be removed from the register [more]

No action on packaging and labelling complaint The Statutory Committee has decided to take no action against a superintendent pharmacist who had taken immediate steps to correct matters following the discovery of unsatisfactory packaging and labelling of medicines in a company pharmacy [more]

No restoration after theft and misconduct by pharmacist The name of a former pharmacist who (before his removal from the register) had been convicted of theft and found guilty of other misconduct while in charge of a pharmacy should not be restored, the Statutory Committee has decided [more]

False claims on returned stock lead to reprimand A Jedburgh pharmacist who returned stock to a wholesaler for replacement, claiming that it had been ordered in error when that was not the case, has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee [more]

Striking-off for Controlled Drug offences

A London pharmacist who had been convicted of supplying Controlled Drugs in a single quantity instead of instalments, as prescribed, and of failing to store methadone in a locked cabinet, has been ordered by the Statutory Committee to be removed from the register. Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman emphasised the need for pharmacists to comply with the regulations in the interests of patients and to prevent drugs reaching the illegal market.

At its meeting on 24 May, the committee inquired into the case of Felix Owolabi Olubunmi Kuforiji, of 18 Goldborne Gardens, London W10. Information had been received that at West London magistrates’ court on 5 May 2000, Mr Kuforiji had pleaded guilty to three offences under Section 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Two offences concerned the failure to supply a Schedule 2 drug, methadone, in specified instalments, as directed by the prescription. The third offence concerned failure to store Controlled Drugs in a locked safe or cabinet. He had received a community service order for 180 hours and had been ordered to pay £55 costs.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) appeared in order to present the facts of the case to the committee. Mr Kuforiji was present and represented himself.

The committee heard that the offences had taken place at Mr Kuforiji’s pharmacy, Vidmo Chemist, 809 Harrow Road, London NW10. One concerned a patient who had been prescribed 560ml of methadone to be dispensed as daily instalments of 40ml between 3 and 16 February 2000, but was supplied with the full 560ml on 3 and 4 February. A second offence concerned a prescription for 840ml methadone to be dispensed in daily instalments of 60ml between 16 and 29 February 2000; Mr Kuforiji had pleaded guilty to supplying the whole amount at one time. That offence had come to light when the prescriber telephoned the pharmacy on 24 February to cancel the amount remaining to be dispensed, because the patient was relocating and had been issued with a new prescription. When Mr Kuforiji said that he had "just" dispensed the remaining three doses to the patient, the doctor was concerned, particularly since the patient was simultaneously being prescribed benzodiazepines, and informed the police.

During the course of the police investigation, 1,000ml of methadone was found in an unlocked storeroom; the CD cupboard was full. That resulted in the third charge.

Mr Kuforiji had explained that by supplying in larger quantities he had been trying to help the patient. He agreed that he had endorsed the prescriptions as if they had been dispensed in instalments.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that the responsibilities imposed on pharmacists by Parliament were serious and important. Where CD prescriptions bore instructions for dispensing in specified instalments, that process must be followed through under pain, otherwise, of criminal sanction against the pharmacist. It was not good enough for a pharmacist to say that it was inconvenient to dispense on an instalment basis or to say that he was intimidated or had violence threatened or, as in this case, that the items were dispensed in a single instalment because it was a compassionate way to deal with the patient.

The committee recognised the difficulties that pharmacists experienced daily with addicts demanding their prescriptions in a single instalment. "It is readily enough appreciated that it can be exceptionally unattractive to have drug addicts hanging about a pharmacy premises. It is also recognised that from time to time they can be violent and threatening and that it can be extremely worrying for individual pharmacists," said the chairman. "However, it does not matter how difficult the circumstances are. Those difficult circumstances cannot serve to diminish the nature and importance of the duty Parliament has imposed upon pharmacists."

Accordingly, the committee could not avoid the conclusion that Mr Kuforiji’s convictions rendered him unfit to be on the register. It was the committee’s duty to underline and emphasise the purpose of the regulations, namely, avoiding danger to individual patients and to prevent CDs getting out to an illegal market. "If the Statutory Committee does not continue to take a stern line on this matter, it is all too easy to see how the very purpose behind the law . . . could be set at nought," the chairman said.

The name of Mr Kuforiji was ordered to be removed from the register.

He had three months in which to appeal.

Back to Top

No action on packaging and labelling complaint

The Statutory Committee has decided to take no action against a superintendent pharmacist who had taken immediate steps to correct matters following the discovery of unsatisfactory packaging and labelling of medicines in a company pharmacy.

At its hearing on 24 May, the committee inquired into the case of Ian J. Greenep, of "Brambletye", The Hanger, Headley, Bordon, Hampshire, and Underack Ltd, which owns two pharmacies. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Greenep’s failure as superintendent pharmacist to ensure that stock present in the dispensary and medicines sales area of the company’s pharmacy trading as Westburys Chemist, 84–93 Streatham High Road, London SW16, was suitable for sale or supply might mean that he had been guilty of such misconduct as to render him unfit to be on the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.

Michael Caplan, of Kingsley Napley (solicitors) represented Mr Greenep, who was present at the inquiry. David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors), appeared on behalf of Underack Ltd.

The committee heard that when one of the Society’s inspectors had visited Westbury’s Chemists, on 24 May 2000, he had found in dispensary drawers or on shelves a number of containers of medicinal products not labelled according to the requirements of the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Etc) Regulations 1994. The inspector took away 10 such items, including a container of sodium valproate tablets whose label indicated that it had been a dispensed medicine, six tubes of Radian B without boxes, and six packs of 24 Extraderm MX50 which were stain damaged (on three, the expiry date was illegible).

On the following day, the inspector had met Mr Greenep, who did not work full-time at the pharmacy. Mr Greenep agreed that much of the packaging had been unacceptable and said all such stock had that day been removed from the dispensary. He also confirmed the termination of an arrangement the company had had with a wholesaler to purchase stock with damaged packaging.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said Mr Greenep had explained the steps he took to check and have checked the drawers in the dispensary; that had been verified by the pharmacy’s senior dispenser. He had explained that he had been amazed at the discovery of the stock and could not explain how it had come about, although he had been in the pharmacy the previous week. He had immediately terminated the contract with the wholesaler and thoroughly checked the pharmacy premises, asking the inspector to check it. Nothing untoward had been found on that occasion. Clearly, Mr Greenep had done a great deal and felt there was not much more he could do. Nevertheless, he appreciated that what had been discovered should not have been discovered.

While it would be difficult to conclude that Mr Greenep had not failed in any part of his duties, the chairman said, his failure did not amount to anything that might be described as serious professional misconduct. The committee decided to take no further action against either Mr Greenep or Underack Ltd.

Back to Top

No restoration after theft and misconduct by pharmacist

The name of a former pharmacist who (before his removal from the register) had been convicted of theft and found guilty of other misconduct while in charge of a pharmacy should not be restored, the Statutory Committee has decided.

At its meeting on 22 May, the committee inquired into the case of Gary Sherwood, whose last registered address was 96 Bonymaen Road, Bonymaen, Swansea. Information had been received that at Caerphilly magistrates’ court on 30 July 1998, Mr Sherwood had pleaded guilty to stealing goods valued at £16.61 from Asda Stores Plc. He had been fined £225 and ordered to pay £40 costs.

In addition, at North Gloucestershire magistrates’ court on 14 December 1999, Mr Sherwood had pleaded guilty to stealing medicines to the value of £207.90 and toiletries worth £165.40 from Martins Chemist, Cheltenham. One similar offence was taken into consideration. He was sentenced to 60 hours’ community service, placed on probation for 12 months and ordered to pay £54 costs.

Further, a complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society that, while pharmacist in charge of Martins Chemist, he had used the pharmacy computer between July and September 1999 to access the internet for purposes unconnected with the pharmacy business and had on a number of occasions told staff to inform customers that prescriptions could not be dispensed because the computer had crashed when that was not the case. He had also failed to honour locum arrangements with another pharmacy after having given written confirmation of the booking.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) appeared in order to place the facts of the case before the committee.

Mr Sherwood had indicated that he would not attend the inquiry and was not represented. His name had been removed from the register on 5 June 2000, for non-payment of his retention fee.

Proceeding with the inquiry in Mr Sherwood’s absence, the committee heard that the theft from Martins Chemist and the unauthorised computer use had come to light after he had been dismissed from the company and the superintendent pharmacist had discovered that the diamorphine register was missing. The superintendent had informed the police, who had visited Mr Sherwood’s home and found stolen medicines and toiletries.

It was also discovered that Mr Sherwood had, without authority, installed internet software on the computer and had used it to make large numbers of visits to various websites. Members of staff had confirmed that patients presenting prescriptions had been turned away on Mr Sherwood’s instructions, the reason being given that the computer had crashed.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that the convictions had been proved and there were further complaints of misconduct on Mr Sherwood’s part. On a number of occasions he had used the computer to access the internet for purposes unconnected with the pharmacy business and in circumstances when he knew his employers would have prohibited its use for such a purpose. While he was accessing the computer, members of the public were told that they could not obtain their prescriptions and should go elsewhere. That was wholly unacceptable conduct for a pharmacist. Finally, there was the allegation that Mr Sherwood had failed to honour locum engagements with no explanation at all as to why he had not done so.

Those acts together with the convictions rendered Mr Sherwood unfit to be on the register. As Mr Sherwood was no longer on the register, it was ruled that his name should not be restored until the committee directed otherwise.

False claims on returned stock lead to reprimand

A Jedburgh pharmacist who returned stock to a wholesaler for replacement, claiming that it had been ordered in error when that was not the case, has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 22 May, the committee inquired into the case of Ewan Douglas Wilson, pharmacist in charge of The Dispensary, 4 High Street, Jedburgh, Roxburghshire, which was one of two pharmacies he owned. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Wilson had returned items of short-dated stock to the wholesaler UniChem, claiming that it had been ordered in error when he knew, or should have known, that that was not the case. The total value of the items was £631.02. It was alleged that such conduct might render Mr Wilson unfit to have his name on the register.

The facts of the case were presented to the committee by Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors). Mr Wilson was present and represented by David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors).

The committee heard that in February 2000, UniChem employees became suspicious that Mr Wilson might be ordering stock and then, claiming that the order was made in error, returning short-dated packs of the same lines from his pharmacy stock, thereby replacing it at no cost to himself.

UniChem began to monitor returned stock from Mr Wilson’s pharmacies on 14 February and during the following week found 14 lines that were short-dated returned from the Jedburgh pharmacy. The returned stock had different expiry dates from that delivered to the pharmacy in the same week. Four more items returned a few days earlier were also found to have different expiry dates to the items delivered. Mr Wilson had admitted returning short-dated stock in the hope that UniChem would be able to sell it on. He said he had not realised that some of the returned stock had been as short-dated as turned out to be the case.

Evidence was given that Mr Wilson had taken over the Jedburgh pharmacy in July 1998. His predecessor had dealt with UniChem, but Mr Wilson made other arrangements. He had decided to start dealing with UniChem in late 1998, following a conversation with the firm’s area manager, who said he had told Mr Wilson that, as a "one off" exercise, he could return short-dated stock on his (the manager’s) personal authorisation. Mr Wilson acknowledged there had been a conversation about returns but said that arrangements for returning stock had not been discussed. He had not begun to return stock until some 12 months after the conversation. He agreed it would have been better to have contacted the manager before making the returns.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said the manager’s and Mr Wilson’s versions of the conversation did not precisely coincide, but the committee accepted what the manager had said, having no reason to consider that it was in any way inaccurate.

Mr Wilson had seemed to be saying that he had been confident that if he sent back the short-dated stock, UniChem would check the expiry dates and, if possible, arrange for it to be sold on. He had indicated that he had returned them as "ordered in error" to avoid the need for UniChem to issue a credit note and at the same time invoice him for what had been sent to him.

The chairman said there was an element of concealment in the arrangement made by Mr Wilson, and it was not convincing that he had little idea that what he had been doing might be "less than regular". Mr Wilson, the chairman said, now accepted that he should have realised at the time that what he had done was not the appropriate way to return short dated stock. The least he could have done was to have alerted UniChem’s manager to give him the chance to judge whether he was prepared to accept the returns, in accordance with company policy.

Mr Wilson had said this was a single incident that had not been repeated. The committee noted that his relationship with UniChem had to be sound, because UniChem was content to continue to supply him. There had been excellent references on his behalf and evidence that his premises were in good professional order. What he had done was nevertheless considered to be misconduct. The committee ordered that Mr Wilson should be reprimanded.