The Society

Statutory Committee

Striking-off for theft of thousands of bottles of glycerin and rosewater A London pharmacist who had been sent to prison for theft from his employer has been struck off the register by the Statutory Committee [more]

Catalogue of dispensing irregularities leads to reprimands for two London pharmacists Two pharmacists whose dispensing systems had led to a number of breaches of the regulations and of the Code of Ethics have been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee [more]

Graduate allowed to register after offences considered The Statutory Committee has agreed to the registration of a pharmacy graduate who had satisfactorily completed his preregistration training but had had earlier convictions for drink related offences and assault [more]

Striking-off for theft of thousands of bottles of glycerin and rosewater

A London pharmacist who had been sent to prison for theft from his employer has been struck off the register by the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 12 September 2001 the committee inquired into the case of Paresh Joshi, of 77 Valnay Street, Tooting Broadway, London SW17. Information had been received that at Kingston Crown Court on 20 November 2000 Mr Joshi had pleaded guilty to, and been convicted of, stealing quantities of bottles of glycerin and rosewater from his then employers, Boots Plc. He had been sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and ordered to pay £13,834 compensation to Boots The Chemists, 21–23 St John's Road, Battersea, London SW11.

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

Mr Joshi was present at the hearing. He was represented by John Simmonds, of counsel, instructed by Titmuss Sainer Dechert (solicitors).

The committee heard that Mr Joshi had been manager of Boots's Battersea pharmacy for three years when, in December 1999, investigations were made by the company into the running of the branch. It had become apparent that large quantities of Boots's own brand of glycerin and rosewater were being ordered.

A check of the computer records showed that there should have been 2,240 bottles of the product in the pharmacy. In fact, there were none. Further inquiries revealed that over a period, 8,310 bottles had been supplied to the branch. Over the same period, only 624 bottles were recorded as having been sold.

At Mr Joshi's trial, the court had been told that one customer had regularly requested quantities of glycerin and rosewater for export to Nigeria. She had always been dealt with by Mr Joshi in person. She had paid him in cash and been given a handwritten receipt. The transactions had not been put through the till. The compensation paid by Mr Joshi related to the retail value of the glycerin and rosewater.

Breach of trust

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that the conviction was not disputed. The offence amounted to a significant breach of trust by the manager of a pharmacy over a period of two years. The amount that had been stolen was substantial.

The committee directed that Mr Joshi's name should be removed from the register. The chairman added that it was not the committee's practice to set a period of time for any removal from the register. However, if Mr Joshi did intend at some point to seek restoration he would be ill advised to anticipate any too early return.

Mr Joshi had three months in which to appeal.

Catalogue of dispensing irregularities leads to reprimands for two London pharmacists

Two pharmacists whose dispensing systems had led to a number of breaches of the regulations and of the Code of Ethics have been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 13 September 2001, the committee considered the case of Jaswinder Singh Channa, Sandeep Kaur Channa and Laser Impex Ltd. Mr Channa was the superintendent pharmacist of the company and Mrs Channa was the pharmacist in charge of the company's pharmacy at 722 Eastern Avenue, Newbury Park, Ilford.

A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society about a number of matters relating to the handling, storage and dispensing of medicines at that pharmacy.

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

Mr and Mrs Channa were present at the hearing and were represented by David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors), who also represented the company, .

The committee heard that the pharmacy, in addition to its normal retail and dispensing operation, supplied medicines to patients at a number of nursing homes. During a routine visit to the pharmacy, one of the Society's inspectors had noticed that medicines were being "popped out" of blister packs for the purpose of filling monitored dosage trays. Tablets and capsules not required for the trays were being placed in storage containers.

The inspector advised Mr and Mrs Channa that only sufficient medicines should be removed at one time to complete one tray and also that trays should not be filled, or returned trays emptied, in the retail area of the pharmacy premises.

Cause for concern

Returning with a colleague on an arranged visit, the inspector noted a number of matters that gave cause for concern. Among those were the following: many manufacturers' containers intended to contain blister strips had loose tablets in them; loose tablets of different brands were in other containers that should have held one manufacturer's brand only; one pack of Sinemet 275mg tablets on a shelf carried a dispensing label and appeared to have been returned by a patient.

Further investigation revealed that a container labelled quinine sulphate actually contained ranitidine tablets, and on prescriptions calling for tolterodine 2mg tablets a number of tolterodine 1mg tablets had been supplied. It was also noted that while the inspectors were in the pharmacy a member of staff was popping stock out of blister packs into a manufacturer's carton in advance of the preparation of monitored dosage system trays.

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC), said that the facts of the case had not been challenged. Notwithstanding the express provision in the Code of Ethics on the popping out of medicinal products from foils of medicines not immediately required, and the advice given by the inspector, Mr Channa had allowed this unacceptable practice to continue; further, he had allowed medicines from different batches and different manufacturers to be placed in single containers, in breach of labelling regulations.

Both Mr and Mrs Channa had failed to ensure that assembled medicines trays had contained the correct medicines at the correct strength, as called for on the prescription. The presence on the dispensary shelves of returned medicines was also in breach of the code.

Those findings amounted to misconduct such as to render Mr and Mrs Channa unfit to be on the register. However, said the chairman, improvements to the systems then in place, suggested by the inspector, had been implemented. Additional staff had been taken on and proper arrangements made for training. In those circumstances, it was felt there was little likelihood of a repetition of the misconduct.

The committee ordered that Mr and Mrs Channa should be reprimanded. No further action would be taken against the company.

Graduate allowed to register after offences considered

The Statutory Committee has agreed to the registration of a pharmacy graduate who had satisfactorily completed his preregistration training but had had earlier convictions for drink related offences and assault.

At its meeting on 12 September 2001, the committee considered the case of Paul Gadsden, of Craigmill Cottage, Balmoral Road, Blairgowrie, Perthshire. Mr Gadsden was a pharmacy graduate who had completed his preregistration year, but had not yet registered. Information had been received that at Brighton magistrates' court on 12 November 1996 Mr Gadsden had pleaded guilty to a charge of criminal damage to the value of £50 and to a charge of common assault. On the first charge he had been fined £25 and ordered to pay £120 costs; on the second charge, he had been fined £25 and ordered to pay compensation of £400.

Mr Gadsden had also appeared at Brighton magistrates court on 10 June 1997, when he had pleaded guilty to driving a car when over the prescribed limit of alcohol. He had also pleaded guilty to a separate charge of failing to provide a specimen for analysis. For those offences he had been ordered to serve 80 hours of community service and put on probation for 12 months. His licence had been endorsed and he had been banned from driving for three years.

The facts of the case were presented to the committee by Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors).

David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors), represented Mr Gadsden, who was present at the hearing.

Chiropodist

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) explained that at the time of the first convictions, Mr Gadsden had been employed as a chiropodist and the matter had been considered by the Chiropodists Board. That board had decided that the convictions did not render him unfit to have his name on the register of chiropodists. The committee was bound to have regard to that decision.

Turning to the second convictions, the chairman said that failure to provide a specimen might be thought to be the more serious offence. The committee accepted Mr Gadsden's assurance, reinforced by a letter from his doctor, that there was no continuing problem with drink. What seemed to have brought about the lapses, said the chairman, had been a set of very unfortunate personal circumstances, with which he had now come to terms.

The committee agreed that Mr Gadsden's name should be added to the register and expressed the hope that he would have a long and successful career as a pharmacist.