The Society

Statutory Committee

Striking-off ordered for pharmacist who practised without paying his retention fee [more]

Indecent photographs lead to pharmacist's striking-off [more]

Striking-off for theft and possession of Controlled Drugs [more]

Pharmacist reprimanded after making dispensing errors [more]

Striking-off ordered for pharmacist who practised without paying his retention fee

The Statutory Committee has directed the Registrar to strike from the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists the name of a pharmacist who practised for almost a year after his removal from the register for non-payment of his retention fee.

At its meeting on 18 June, the committee inquired into the case of Jayvant Patel, of "Chitrakoot", Spring Pond Meadow, Hook End, Brentwood, Essex. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Patel had practised as a pharmacist between about 7 June 2000 and 10 May 2001 while unregistered. In particular, it was alleged that he had practised on 11, 14 and 15 May 2001 after he had been told that he could not work as a pharmacist until he had been restored to the register.

David Bradly, of counsel, instructed by Penningtons (solicitors), was present to place the facts of the case before the committee.

Mr Patel attended the hearing; he represented himself.

Penalty fee payable

The committee was told that Mr Patel's name was removed from the register for non-payment of the retention fee on 5 June 2000. A letter was sent to his registered address on the same date informing him of that fact and that if he wished to have his name restored a penalty fee of £297 would be payable in addition to the retention fee. On or about the same date, a letter was received from Mr Patel containing a cheque for £138 but omitting the penalty fee.

That cheque was returned, together with a letter informing him that the penalty fee was required. There was no response.

The following year, on 10 May 2001, Mr Patel had visited the Society's offices and explained that he had only, within the previous few days, gone to his registered address and opened the letter from the Society. He had not, he said, visited that address since before the previous June. He had brought with him £140 in cash, insufficient to pay for the retention fee and the restoration penalty.

He had been told unequivocally that he could not practise as a pharmacist until the full balance was paid and he had had written confirmation that his name had been restored.

On 15 May, when one of the Society's inspectors paid a routine visit to the pharmacy where Mr Patel was employed, he found him acting as pharmacist in charge. He had also admitted acting in that capacity on 11 and 14 May. His outstanding fee and penalty were then paid by his employer.

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that, notwithstanding the intimation that his name had been removed from the register and that notice of the removal had been printed in The Pharmaceutical Journal in August 2000, Mr Patel had continued to practise as a pharmacist. He had done so in a manner that showed a cavalier disregard for the requirements of the Pharmacy Act 1954. The committee found it astonishing that for something like 11 months he had not opened correspondence from the Society.

Mr Patel had argued in his own defence that there must have been some administrative error within the Society. It was not clear why he made that assumption. The clear evidence pointed the other way. He had been sent advice by e-mail from the Society in May 2000 that he had to pay his retention fee before the end of that month.

Mr Patel appeared to have made no effort to check out his status on the register. That was particularly surprising because he was well aware of the process of removal from the register, having been removed previously for non-payment of fees in 1996.

Nor was Mr Patel an inexperienced pharmacist, said the chairman. He should have appreciated that the law conferred on pharmacists the privilege of dispensing not only on the basis of academic achievement but also of registration with the Society. Notwithstanding all that, he had carried on working for a period of 11 months. It strained credulity that he had never visited his address to see if there was any communication from the Society, nor had contact with it after June 2000. If he had done so, this wholly unacceptable situation would have been more swiftly resolved.

If the inspector had not carried out his routine visit when he had done, it was a matter of speculation how long the unlawful practice by Mr Patel would have continued. This was not a matter of a few days going by or a simple error of short duration. It was a protracted period.

Registration is absolute essential

"It must be understood by those in the profession of pharmacy," continued Lord Fraser, " that registration with the Society is an absolute essential".

In the public interest, the committee had no option but to direct that Mr Patel's name should be removed from the register.

Mr Patel was given three months in which to appeal.

Indecent photographs lead to pharmacist's striking-off

A pharmacist who had possessed and distributed indecent photographs of children has been struck off the register by the Statutory Committee

At its meeting on July 23, the committee inquired into the case of John Wyatt, of 3 Orchard Close, March, Cambridgeshire. Information had been received that at Peterborough magistrates' court on 4 July 2001 Dr Wyatt had pleaded guilty to and been convicted on one count of distributing an indecent photograph of a child and four counts of possessing indecent photographs of children. All the offences took place between 1 January 1999 and 11 January 2001. He had received a community service order for 24 months with a condition to attend Cambridgeshire probation service sex offender group work programme and ordered to pay costs of £65. An order was also made under the Sex Offenders Act 1997 for a period of five years.

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

Miles Bennett, of counsel, instructed by Dawbarns Pearson (solicitors) appeared on behalf of Dr Wyatt, who attended the hearing.

Wholly unacceptable conduct

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said Dr Wyatt conceded that his conduct was wholly unacceptable for a pharmacist and his conviction was such as to render him unfit to be on the register.

He had been open and honest with the committee. His probation officer's report had spoken of a low risk of further offending. However, the committee could only register its disapprobation of such conduct by ordering Dr Wyatt's removal from the register.

The chairman added a note of concern about the fact that when Dr Wyatt had twice approached the Society proffering his resignation he had been advised not to do so. The decision to remove his name had been more or less inevitable, he said, and the committee was somewhat surprised that that advice was given when he sought to resign.

Striking-off for theft and possession of Controlled Drugs

A north London locum pharmacist has been removed from the register following a conviction for the theft of drugs from the pharmacy where he was working.

At its meeting on 23 May, the committee inquired into the case of Richard L. Conway, of 25 Pollard Road, London N20. Information had been received that at Hendon magistrates' court, on 7 September 2001, Mr Conway had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of three offences of the theft of "prescription-only/Controlled Drugs medicines", and one offence of possession of a class B drug, amphetamine. He had received a community punishment order for 100 hours, a fine of £50 and ordered to pay compensation of £135. The amphetamine was ordered to be destroyed.

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

Mr Conway had indicated that he would not attend the hearing; he was not represented.

The committee heard that the offences had taken place between January 2000 and 21 June 2001 while Mr Conway was acting as a locum pharmacist for two evenings a week at a north London pharmacy. They had come to light when the police chemists' inspection officer, during a routine inspection of the Controlled Drugs cabinet, had noticed discrepancies in the amphetaminestocks. The pharmacist proprietor and the police officer arranged for a box containing eight Dexedrine tablets to be placed in the cabinet in an easily visible location before Mr Conway came in to work his usual Thursday evening shift. When he left, at 8pm, the proprietor returned to check the cabinet and found the Dexedrine missing, with no corresponding entry in the CD register.

A similar exercise was carried out on 21 June, but this time the Dexedrine strips and container were marked using an invisible marker pen. Again, the Dexedrine was missing after Mr Conway had left. He was apprehended before reaching his house and admitted he had taken the tablets, which were on his person. along with other drugs including propranolol and diazepam. A search of his bedroom revealed other drugs. These included propranolol 40mg tablets, pseudoephedrine 60mg tablets, diazepam 5mg tablets, fluoxetine 200mg capsules and Ritalin SR 20mg tablets. A total stock shortage of 320 Dexedrine tablets was identified.

The prosecution had followed.

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said the salient feature of the case was that while Mr Conway had been acting as a locum in a pharmacy, he had stolen quantities of Controlled Drugs from that pharmacy and misused them personally. That amounted to an unacceptable breach of trust from a pharmacist.

The conviction was such as to render Mr Conway unfit to be on the register.

The committee ordered that his name should be removed.

He had three months in which to appeal.

Pharmacist reprimanded after making dispensing errors

The Statutory Committee has reprimanded a pharmacist who had made dispensing errors and was criticised for his attitude to some patients.

At its meeting on 19 June, the committee inquired into the case of Gordon T. Cannell, of 7 Epsom Close, Stockport, Cheshire. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that dispensing errors by Mr Cannell, in the context of warnings and advice he had received, his failure to follow systems for dispensing and checking, and his responses to a patient when errors had been brought to his attention, might demonstrate that he had been guilty of professional misconduct.

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

Mr Cannell was present at the hearing and was represented by Oliver Britton, of Turner & Debenhams (solicitors).

The committee heard that in January 1998 one of the Society's inspectors had visited Mr Cannell at the Peak Pharmacy, Green Lane, Chinley, where he was the manager. During the visit, dispensing errors were discussed and Mr Cannell agreed to review his dispensing procedures.

In April 1999, the area manager for the company owning the pharmacy visited the premises following an alleged dispensing error and received an assurance from Mr Cannell that he would be more diligent and that his dispensing would be checked by a second person. Later that year and in the period up to February 2000, the area manager investigated complaints about Mr Cannell's alleged poor customer relations skills.

Then, between 18 February and 15 May 2000, it was alleged that venlafaxine tablets had been dispensed against three prescriptions calling for venlafaxine modified release 75mg capsules. The capsules are intended to be taken in one daily dose and the tablets in two divided doses daily. The error was discovered by the patient's psychiatrist, who had originally prescribed them. When the patient took the next prescription for venlafaxine capsules to be dispensed, she brought the error to Mr Cannell's attention. He insisted that modified release capsules were not available. However, on seeking to demonstrate the point by showing the patient the list on the computer screen the availability of delayed release capsules was demonstrated. He told the patient "they must be new" but offered no apology. In fact, the formulation had been licensed in 1997 and in the British National Formulary for more than a year.

Other errors were, in July 2000, supplying metformin 850mg tablets against a prescription for the 500mg strength and, in May 2001, dispensing thyroxine 25mcg tablets, labelled as 50mcg, when 50mcg had been prescribed. Those errors were admitted.

Giving the committee's decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that the error relating to the dispensing of venlafaxine was the most problematic. The committee had not been able to examine the prescriptions and it could not be ascertained with absolute certainty what was stated on them. The committee had, however, seen the medication record held by the patient's doctor and a comparable record kept by the pharmacy. The problem was that they did not match. It had been explained that the doctor's records would not necessarily reflect all prescriptions issued to patients, particularly when the original prescription was a hand-written one given by a specialist. In that case, it might have been entered in the patient's medication record later to take account of what the specialist had indicated to the general practitioner. The critical matter was whether the prescription had called for capsules or whether it had first called for tablets.

There was no dispute that Mr Cannell did indeed dispense tablets on two or three occasions and that on at least one occasion he incorrectly dispensed tablets instead of modified release capsules. That might have happened on other occasions but the committee could not be wholly confident about that and so restricted its view of the error to a single occasion.

He had also made brusque and unacceptable responses to the patient when she had brought the venlafaxine error to his attention — even though she had good cause to make complaint. Only at the hearing had Mr Cannell offered a full apology for the error. The committee was uncomfortable with Mr Cannell's attitude to some of his customers.

Taking the three separate errors together, and weighing that unattractive conduct in the balance alongside those errors, said the chairman, that amounted to such misconduct as to render Mr Cannell liable to be removed from the register. However, he had a long and unblemished record as a pharmacist and had produced excellent references. And since those events he had followed a much improved dispensing procedure. The committee reprimanded Mr Cannell.