Statutory Committee

Reprimand after cannabis conviction more

Reprimand for misconduct linked to past drink problems more

Application for restoration allowed more

Dispensing errors lead to reprimand more

Reprimand for breaches of Controlled Drug regulations more

Reprimand after cannabis conviction

A pharmacist who had been convicted for possessing cannabis shortly before he registered has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee.

At its meeting on 17 March, the committee resumed an inquiry into the case of Adrian Stuart Lister Martin, of 80 Welwyndale Road, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands. Mr Martin had appeared before the committee on 10 December 2001 following information that at Aldridge magistrates’ court on 21 August 2000 he had been fined £300 and ordered to pay costs of £118 after pleading guilty to possession of cannabis.

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

Mr Martin was present at both hearings; on the first occasion he was represented by Murray Shanks, of counsel, instructed by Addison O’Hare (solicitors).

When it met on 10 December 2001, the committee heard that on 12 July 2000, shortly before he was registered as a pharmacist, Mr Martin had been approached by police officers while sitting in his parked car. One of the officers recognised the smell of cannabis and challenged Mr Martin, who produced a polythene bag containing cigarette papers and a herbal substance that he admitted was cannabis. The prosecution had followed.

Code of Ethics

The chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said at the December 2001 hearing that the committee had decided to adjourn its decision. An offence such as that to which Mr Martin had pleaded guilty could be regarded as misconduct leading to the removal of his name from the register. The Code of Ethics required pharmacists to obey the law at all times. Pharmacists, he said, must understand the importance of observing all legal requirements for drugs. The committee was not convinced that Mr Martin had a true appreciation of this responsibility incumbent upon him. It had decided therefore to adjourn the inquiry for a year, when they would like to see fuller references than were available at that meeting. If nothing adverse were reported against him during that period, Mr Martin would be reprimanded.

Giving the committee’s decision at the 17 March hearing (which had been adjourned from 10 December 2002), Lord Fraser said that Mr Martin was a young man in the early part of his career. He had not made the most auspicious of starts but the committee had given him the benefit of the doubt, and trusted that he really did now understand his responsibilities as a citizen and those that flowed from his registration as a pharmacist. Although Mr Martin had not provided quite the references he had been asked for, nothing adverse had been reported concerning him. The committee hoped that from now on he would have a blameless career.

Mr Martin was reprimanded.

Reprimand for misconduct linked to past drink problems

The Statutory Committee has reprimanded a pharmacist for misconduct attributed to a former problem with drink.

At its meeting on 18 March, the committee resumed an inquiry into the case of Michael Robert Lawrie, of 3 Breton, Stony Stratford, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire. An inquiry had been held on 13 March 2001 into a drink-related conviction, and a second inquiry, into the improper storage of Controlled Drugs and failure to submit prescription forms for pricing, was held on 17 September 2002 (PJ, 18 January, p97). Mr Lawrie had been found to have committed misconduct; a decision on both inquiries had been postponed until the present meeting.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) appeared in order to present the facts of the case. Sam Flew, of Radcliffes LeBrasseur (solicitors), represented Mr Lawrie, who was present at the inquiry.

The committee heard that Mr Lawrie had had rehabilitation, received regular counselling, and routinely attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. He had been totally abstinent for more than three years and had obtained less stressful employment.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that the underlying cause of Mr Lawrie’s misconduct, considered at the earlier meetings, was excessive reliance on alcohol. Subsequent to those hearings, he had clearly made good progress in understanding the nature of his condition. His counsellors had stated that he was positive in his attitude to his recovery and that he had real insight into his condition. They had told the committee that, provided he continued with his active support system, the prognosis was very good; there were no concerns about Mr Lawrie’s fitness to practise.

The committee decided that Mr Lawrie should be reprimanded.

Application for restoration allowed

The Statutory Committee has granted an application for restoration to the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists by a former pharmacist whose name had been removed for non-payment of his retention fee in 1992.

The committee considered the application, by Marlon Chadana Banda, of 43 Summerfield Street, Ballymena, County Antrim, Northern Ireland, on 18 March.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) presented the facts of the case.

Richard Chapman, of counsel, instructed by Curia Regis Legal Services, represented Mr Banda, who was present at the hearing.

The committee heard that Mr Banda had been registered in July 1991. His name had been removed for non-payment of the annual retention fee on 29 May 1992. Before that, he had been pharmacist in charge of a London pharmacy, of which he had been appointed superintendent pharmacist in October 1991. There had been a change to the company owning the pharmacy in April 1992, although the previous pharmacist director and shareholder remained, but Mr Banda had not been informed of the change and was unaware it had taken place. He had left the company at the end of April and departed overseas on 14 May 1992. He had worked in Zambia for most of the subsequent period.

After he had left, a number of Medicines Act and Misuse of Drugs Act offences had taken place at the pharmacy, as a result of which the committee, at a hearing on 25 April 1995, ordered the removal of the pharmacist director’s name from the register. Although Mr Banda had not been involved in any way, there was an allegation of misconduct against him as it had appeared he was superintendent of the company at the time of the offences. The committee had decided that the allegation should remain on file, and that Mr Banda should not be restored to the register unless the committee directed otherwise.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC), said the only evidence about Mr Banda being a de facto superintendent at the 1995 hearing had come from the director who had been found responsible for the offences and who had his own self-serving reasons for giving that evidence. If he had admitted there was no superintendent, that would have been a further matter of complaint from the Society.

The committee ruled that Mr Banda had no case to answer; he was off the register only because he had not paid his dues. So long as Mr Banda paid the appropriate fee, including any penalty, his request for restoration could not be resisted.

Dispensing errors lead to reprimand

A pharmacist said to be regarded by some of his customers as “mildly eccentric” has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee after complaints of dispensing errors.

At its meeting on 17 March, the committee inquired into the case of Derek Michael Evans, of 19 Carlisle Avenue, St Albans, Hertfordshire, and Freeman Grieve Ltd. Mr Evans is superintendent pharmacist and a director of the company, which owns a pharmacy at 111–113 St Peter’s Street, St Albans.

The committee had received a complaint from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Evans had been pharmacist in charge when dispensing errors had been made at the company’s pharmacy and that he had dealt inappropriately with complaints from patients.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), was present to give the facts of the case.

Denis Keegan, of Turner & Debenhams (solicitors), appeared on behalf of Mr Evans, who attended the inquiry.

The committee heard that in November 1997 and July 1998 the Society had received complaints from members of the public about errors made in dispensing prescriptions. Mr Evans had been warned, and given advice on improving his dispensing procedures by the Society’s inspectors on two occasions between February and August 1998. A further complaint from a patient, about Mr Evans’s attitude in dealing with matters arising from a dispensed prescription, had been received in March 1999.

The present inquiry arose from an incident on 20 November 2001 after a patient had presented a prescription calling for 56 atenolol 100mg tablets, one to be taken daily, and another for 56 nifedipine extra MR 60mg tablets. On the first prescription, two containers of 28 atenolol 50mg tablets, each labelled “56 atenolol 100mg tablets” had been dispensed, with the direction, “one to be taken daily”. On the second, two containers of 28 Slofedipine 20mg MR tablets had been dispensed, each labelled “56 nifedipine 20mg tablets, one to be taken daily”.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that in the November 2001 incident, atenolol tablets of half the strength prescribed had been dispensed and nifedipine tablets of one third of the strength called for had been dispensed. Those errors, as Mr Evans had acknowledged, could have had serious consequences for the patient, who had a serious blood pressure condition.

Two months had elapsed before the patient had noticed the error and contacted Mr Evans. His response had been neither as immediate nor as professional as it should have been, said the chairman. The patient regarded him as “blasé” about the error. The chairman said that in the immediate aftermath of the discovery of the error, Mr Evans had done little or nothing to attend to the patient’s best interests.

Although the prescriptions had been handed over by an assistant, Mr Evans acknowledged his responsibility for the errors. He had also apologised for his attitude in dealing with the patients in the present case and in earlier ones. In 1998 there had been two separate incidents of significant dispensing errors. While those had been appropriately dealt with by the Society at the time by way of warnings and advice, they set the context for the later error, said the chairman. The pattern was consistent — an error followed by a failure to apologise.

Some of Mr Evans’s patients clearly regarded his behaviour in the pharmacy as mildly eccentric, commented Lord Fraser. Others, he continued, were not so entranced and had made their complaints. It was not for the committee to interfere if Mr Evans was only mildly eccentric, but such behaviour could not be allowed as a cover for falling below the professional standards required of a pharmacist. He would be expected to follow the advice given by the Society’s inspectors and institute the recommended changes in procedures to ensure that the best practice was observed in his pharmacy, The committee reprimanded Mr Evans. No action was taken with respect to Freeman Grieve Ltd.

Reprimand for breaches of Controlled Drug regulations

A pharmacist has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee after being found responsible for irregularities in the supply and recording of Controlled Drugs.

At its meeting on 19 March, the committee inquired into the case of Ian Bell, of 19 Dunottar Avenue, Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, and Bellpharm Ltd. Mr Bell is a director and the superintendent pharmacist of the company, which owns a pharmacy at 9a Lealholm Crescent, Ormesby, Middlesbrough. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that systems were operated by Mr Bell by which supplies were made by the pharmacy of Controlled Drugs without a valid prescription at the time of supply, there were breaches of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985 regarding the endorsement of prescriptions at the time of supply and there were failures to comply with the record-keeping requirements of the regulations.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) was present to give the facts of the case.

Sara Morgan, of Brooke North (solicitors) appeared on behalf of the company and Mr Bell, who was present.

The committee heard that the case arose from irregularities in the supply of medicines prescribed between October and December 2001 for a patient in a nursing home. The patient was regularly prescribed MST 10mg tablets, a CD, for the relief of pain. On 1 October 2001, 60 tablets were supplied from the pharmacy before a prescription, dated 3 October, was received. It was not clear when the prescription was received but it was endorsed, and an entry made in the CD register, on 22 October. On 29 October, a further supply of 60 MST tablets was made for which no prescription was received. Another prescription for 60 MST tablets on 30 November was endorsed on 19 December; an entry in respect of that supply was dated 30 November but followed an entry for 2 January 2002; it appeared to have been made between 14 and 19 December.

Similar irregularities included several in respect of another patient, who was not a resident at the same nursing home. In that case, a CD register entry dated 14 December was followed by consecutive entries dated 5, 12, 19 and 26 December 2001 and 2 January 2002, immediately followed by an entry dated 30 November.

Mr Bell had admitted the failures to comply with the regulations. He said they arose from a misunderstanding as to how the register should be maintained and because of problems associated with obtaining the necessary prescriptions for the first patient.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that although the errors primarily related to a prescription for a patient who was not likely to misuse drugs, the busy pharmacy supplied people who might be liable to do so. Accordingly, Mr Bell should have kept the register in immaculate fashion. Regrettably, he had not done that, although by the time he appeared before the committee he was fully aware of the requirements of the law.

Although Mr Bell appeared to have acted in the best interests of his patients, in doing so he had run foul of the law and might well have been prosecuted. It was accepted that the defects in record keeping did not conceal a misuse of drugs or any attempt at unlawful gain; but if the police had been called in late 2001, he would have been in no position to give an accurate account of what had been supplied on valid prescriptions, and to whom.

In failing to observe the requirements of the law, Mr Bell was guilty of misconduct such as to render him unfit to be on the register. However, he had stated that practices at the pharmacy had since been changed, in the light of advice from the Society’s inspectors, so as to ensure that similar situations could not recur. Further, he had since been visited by the police who had checked his registers and found no subsequent irregularities.

Because of the significant improvements made by Mr Bell, the committee decided to restrict its sanction to a reprimand. No action was taken against the company.