Statutory Committee

Striking-off for theft from employer more

Application for restoration to register is “premature” more

Dispensing errors lead to reprimand for pharmacist more

No restoration for locum convicted of drug theft more

Striking-off for theft from employer

A Worcester pharmacist who stole medicines from his employer while working as a locum has been struck off the register by order of the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 22 January, the committee inquired into the case of John Colin Hodges, of “Crown Cottage”, Worcester Road, Shrawley, Worcester. Information had been received that at Kidderminster magistrates’ court on 24 January 2002 Mr Hodges had pleaded guilty to the theft of a quantity of prescription-only medicines from a pharmacy at which he had been working as a locum. He had been conditionally discharged for two years and ordered to pay £118 costs.

Fenella Morris, of counsel, instructed by Penningtons (solicitors) presented the facts of the case to the committee.

Mr Hodges was present, represented by Alan Bull, of Thursfields (solicitors).

The committee heard that Mr Hodges worked as a locum pharmacist for various pharmacists and also worked in the pharmacy owned by his wife (also a pharmacist). On 14 November 2001 he showed two boxes of Glucotrend from his wife’s pharmacy to an assistant at the pharmacy where he was acting as locum and asked if it would be in order to exchange them for Losec capsules. The assistant said that the proprietor would agree to the exchange as they were of the same value. Later that morning, she saw at the rear of the pharmacy a white carrier bag containing a number of boxes of Losec. When Mr Hodges left for lunch he was carrying the white bag; when he returned he was not. The assistant called the proprietor, who returned to the pharmacy and called the police.

When Mr Hodges’s car was searched, the police found eight boxes of 28 Losec 20mg capsules, two packs of 28 Lipostat 10mg, one box of 28 Zocor tablets 20mg and one box of 28 Zispin tablets 30mg. Later, a box of 28 Zoton 30mg capsules fell out of a newspaper Mr Hodges was carrying; he had admitted that those had also come from the pharmacy.

The chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Hodges had pleaded guilty to and been convicted of the theft of a number of items from a pharmacy where he had been working. That was a serious breach of trust. The theft by one pharmacist from another was not acceptable.

He asked whether anything further was known in respect of Mr Hodges.

The committee heard that in 1984 Mr Hodges had received a prison sentence for two offences of theft against his employer and one of conspiracy to defraud. When he appeared before the committee in relation to those offences, he was reprimanded.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman said that Mr Hodges had expressed his remorse and regret for his actions. However, the committee had always taken a stern view of thefts by pharmacists working in a pharmacy. Although his previous appearance had been some 21 years ago, there was an unhappy similarity between Mr Hodges’s dishonesty on that occasion and his dishonesty on this occasion. The extra information that had been put before them simply confirmed the committee in its assessment that Mr Hodges’s name should be removed from the register and the committee ordered him to be struck off.

He had three months in which to appeal.

Application for restoration to register is “premature”

A man whose name has been removed from the register had an application for restoration refused by the Statutory Committee at its meeting on 21 January. The applicant was Shirazali Panjawani, of 120 Golders Green Road, London NW11.
Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), appeared in order to present the facts of the case to the committee.

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

The committee had ordered the removal of Mr Panjawani’s name on 11 October 2001, after a three-day hearing (PJ, 7 September 2002, p343). Mr Panjawani had failed to account for supplies of Viagra from his pharmacy, and failed to identify and remedy poor practices relating to the supply of prescription only medicines. The committee, in its decision, had noted that Mr Panjawani had failed to co-operate with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s inspectors in their investigation into the matter and had sought “to obfuscate and make their task more difficult”.

Mr Panjawani had appealed against the order to remove his name. In a decision on the appeal at the divisional court, Lord Justice Sedley had set aside the committee’s findings in relation to the alleged failure to account for supplies of Viagra. He had, however, found that other allegations, largely admitted by Mr Panjawani, were sufficiently serious to warrant the removal of his name.

Following the divisional court’s ruling, Mr Panjawani’s name had been removed from the register on 17 May 2002.

The divisional court’s judgment recorded that Mr Panjawani “accepted the following proven failures: failure to ensure that prescriptions ordering Viagra against which the product was supplied were correctly written; a failure to make accurate records or to ensure accurate records of Viagra supplies; a failure to identify and remedy poor practices relating to the recording and supply of prescription-only medicines; involvement on Mr Panjawani’s part in arrangements whereby medicines liable to misuse dispensed against prescriptions were collected by the doctor for transmission to the patient without further involvement of the pharmacist; and a failure to endorse with the date of supply prescriptions for Controlled Drugs, together with partial acceptance of a failure to ensure that prescriptions ordering Controlled Drugs were dispensed only within their period of validity”.

The court had noted that those actions demonstrated a serious set of failures made markedly worse by the fact that Mr Panjawani’s appearance before the committee in September 2001 had not been his first appearance. He had in 1996 been reprimanded in respect of a conviction for selling medicinal products without a wholesale licence and had been warned on that occasion by the then chairman of the committee (Gary Flather, QC) that “he must not allow any of his procedures to fall behind, whatever his personal circumstances and difficulties”.

Lord Justice Sedley had remarked, in relation to those comments: “There could not have been a closer warning shot across Mr Panjawani’s bows and yet within three years his record keeping is back in chaos.”

Evidence was presented that certain medical conditions from which Mr Panjawani had suffered had been resolved.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) referred to the divisional court’s judgment in which it was stated: “Like the Statutory Committee, we would not propose to place any time limit on an application that [Mr Panjawani] might make for restoration and since the grounds for removal are on any view less grave in total than they were, he may be able to apply sooner than would otherwise have been the case for restoration.”

Naturally, continued the chairman, the committee followed carefully what the divisional court had to say and also had regard to the medical reports. “We will certainly consider restoration at a point earlier than might ordinarily be the case,” he said. Consistently in the past, however, without fixing a precise time, the committee had indicated that any application coming before it in less that two years would be regarded as premature.

The committee considered that the eight-month period that had elapsed since the removal of Mr Panjawani’s name was, in the circumstances outlined in the judgment and forming the basis of the case in the determination of the court in removing his name, too short. The application was premature.

If Mr Panjawani were to come back to the committee in a year’s time that would still be markedly less than two years, which was the lower limit of the norm. Other matters being equal, the committee would look favourably upon his restoration at that stage.

Dispensing errors lead to reprimand for pharmacist

The Statutory Committee has reprimanded a pharmacist who made two identical errors in dispensing Controlled Drugs.

At its meeting on 20 January, the committee inquired into the case of Muhammad Abdul Qayyam Chaudry, of 62 Lilac Road, Southampton. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Dr Chaudry had made errors in dispensing and in recording Controlled Drugs. He had on two occasions dispensed dexamphetamine mixture when methadone mixture had been prescribed and had incorrectly endorsed a prescription to the effect that dexamethasone elixir had been dispensed when this was not the case.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), presented the facts of the case. Dr Chaudry attended the hearing. He was represented by Irena Ray-Crosby, of counsel, instructed by Hedley Visick (solicitors).

The committee heard that on 18 September 2001 a prescription was presented at the Southampton pharmacy, where Dr Chaudry was locum pharmacist in charge, calling for methadone mixture 1mg/ml for a patient at a rehabilitation unit. The prescription was dispensed and handed out. The following day, when a nurse at the unit was about to administer the medicine, she noticed that it was not the customary colour or smell for methadone mixture. She contacted the pharmacy and Dr Chaudry had confirmed that he had dispensed dexamphetamine instead of methadone, although he had labelled the bottle as methadone. The entry in the CD register had been for “252ml dexamphetamine 1mg/ml”. The error was corrected and the correct medicine supplied. Subsequently, one of the Society’s inspectors had spoken to Dr Chaudry about the need to take more care when dispensing medicines.

Then, on 16 October 2001, a prescription for the same patient, also for methadone mixture 1mg/ml, was presented at the pharmacy. Dr Chaudry had again dispensed dexamphetamine mixture. He had entered it as dexamphetamine in the Controlled Drugs register but had endorsed the prescription “224ml dexamethasone elixir 1 mg/ml”.

Dr Chaudry had admitted the errors, for which he apologised. They had, he said, occurred when he had been interrupted during his lunchtime prayers and he had not checked those prescriptions. Nothing similar had happened in his 30 years as a pharmacist.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Dr Chaudry was one of the most distinguished pharmacists to have appeared before the committee during his time as chairman. It was particularly perplexing that he should have made two identical errors in a short period of time. They were serious errors involving Controlled Drugs and he had admitted his lapses in concentration.

In the first instance, he had dispensed dexamphetamine instead of methadone mixture, nevertheless labelling the bottle methadone. The original entry in the Controlled Drugs register was for 18 September 2001 when it should have been for 19 September and it was for dexamphetamine; further, he had not endorsed the prescription.

To his credit, he had drawn the incident to the attention of one of the Society’s inspectors, who was inquiring about a wholly unrelated matter. The committee was puzzled and dismayed that on 16 October 2001 he had made more or less the same error involving the same patient. However, the committee gave him the benefit of the doubt in relation to that second incident and concluded that he had noted his own error and would have communicated it, had not the unit where the patient was residing done so first.

The committee found both errors proved and, because both involved Controlled Drugs, regarded them together as so serious as to warrant the removal of Dr Chaudry’s name from the register. However, the two errors were out of character, the committee believed. There had been no commercial motive involved and Dr Chaudry had co-operated fully with the Society in its inquiry.

Dr Chaudry was now working in a hospital pharmacy and was clearly more comfortable in that environment. The committee advised him to concentrate on such activity and to avoid locum work in a very busy community pharmacy where less than adequate systems were in place.

The committee ordered that Dr Chaudry should be reprimanded.

No restoration for locum convicted of drug theft

The Statutory Committee has directed that a former pharmacist convicted of stealing Controlled Drugs from his employer should not be restored to the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists.

On 21 January, the committee inquired into the case of Naveed Mukhtar, of 47 Russell Road, Hall Green, Birmingham. Information had been received that at Warwickshire magistrates’ court on 19 February 2002 Mr Mukhtar had pleaded guilty to the theft of a quantity of Dexedrine tablets and Ritalin tablets from a branch of Lloydspharmacy at which he had been working as a locum. He had been sentenced to a community punishment order of 200 hours and ordered to pay £55 costs.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), appeared in order to present the facts of the case. Edward Henry, of counsel, instructed by Cromwell (solicitors), represented Mr Mukhtar, who was present.

The committee heard that on 15 August 2001 Mr Mukhtar was locum pharmacist in charge at Lloydspharmacy, Polesworth. While he was making a delivery, the branch supervisor had occasion to check the CD cabinet. She had found a number of items missing. In a bin in the staff toilets she had found empty blister packs of Ritalin and Dexedrine tablets. She then telephoned the area manager who came to the branch and interviewed Mr Mukhtar. After initially denying involvement, Mr Mukhtar admitted taking Dexedrine and Ritalin tablets from the CD cabinet and said he had consumed 20 Ritalin and 14 Dexedrine during the morning. In his car, his jacket was found to contain a blister pack of 14 Dexedrine tablets and 10 Ritalin. Prosecution had followed. Mr Mukhtar’s name had been erased from the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists for non-payment of fees on 13 May 2002.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Mukhtar had admitted the theft of the tablets found in his car and had also admitted that he had earlier that day consumed 20 Ritalin and 14 Dexedrine tablets. He had made no comment to the police when questioned about the empty blister packs found in the toilet, and the committee would disregard those.

In explanation for the theft and consumption of tablets, the committee had been told that Mr Mukhtar had suffered a “devastating breakdown of a relationship across two faiths”. While the committee had sympathy for one who had suffered such a break-up, said the chairman, it was no excuse for a professional person working in a pharmacy to react in such a way. The inquiry was confined to the conviction, the circumstances of which had been largely admitted.

Mr Mukhtar, while in charge of the pharmacy, had removed Class B drugs from the CD cupboard on one or possibly two occasions. He had consumed what could only be described as a massive quantity of both drugs and removed more to his car parked at the premises. Said the chairman: “It would have been bad enough if he had removed any drugs from his employer’s premises but, worse still, he removed Controlled Drugs.”

It had been submitted on Mr Mukhtar’s behalf that the committee should have regard to public interest. “That we do,” said Lord Fraser. “In our view it cannot be in the public interest to have pharmacists stealing from their employers, consuming large quantities of Controlled Drugs, and then driving a car and continuing to serve the public in a pharmacy.” That was more than sufficient to amount to misconduct rendering Mr Mukhtar unfit to be on the register. If he had still been on it, the committee would have had no hesitation in removing his name.

The committee ordered that Mr Mukhtar’s name should not be restored until it directed otherwise. If he sought restoration in the future, he would have to satisfy the committee that there was no risk of any repetition of the theft and consumption of CD.