Statutory Committee

Statutory Committee reprimands locum pharmacist whose action left pharmacy closed for three days more

Reprimand from Statutory Committee for pharmacist who only paid part-time retention fee for three years although working full time more

Pharmacist who stole dihydrocodeine tablets given reprimand after evidence that no longer addicted more

Restoration to register for man convicted of deception and theft more

Statutory Committee reprimands locum pharmacist whose action left pharmacy closed for three days

The Statutory Committee has reprimanded a Cornwall locum pharmacist who “stormed out” of the pharmacy of which he was in charge, resulting in its closure for three days.

At its meeting on 14 April 2003, the committee inquired into the case of Stephen Bruce Inns, of the Toll House, The Barns, Lower Treluswell, Perryn, Cornwall. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Inns had failed to honour professional obligations to Tesco Stores Ltd on 30 May 2002 and that he had failed to honour contractual commitments to Tesco on 31 May and 1 June 2002.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), attended the inquiry to present the facts of the case.

Mr Inns was neither present nor represented, having indicated that he did not intend to appear.

The committee decided to proceed in Mr Inns’s absence. It heard that the case arose from incidents occurring while Mr Inns was working as a locum pharmacist at Tesco’s in-store pharmacy at Helston. He had been working there regularly for three days a week for a little over a year. He had signed an agreement whereby he had agreed, inter alia, to give not less than three days’ written notice if he wished to terminate his engagement. In January 2002, in talks with his managers, Mr Inns had publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with his employment and with his terms of service. He had also been dismissive over use of the company’s error risk management report forms, which recorded “near misses” — dispensing errors corrected before a prescription was handed out. There had also been a series of disagreements with a dispensing assistant in the early months of 2002.

This culminated on 29 May 2002 when Mr Inns told the company’s pharmacy support manger that he did not want the assistant to work in the dispensary. The following day she was still in the dispensary and Mr Inns had left the premises, shouting at the store manager in the presence of patients, one of whom had been “desperate” for her prescriptions

Pharmacy closed

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC), said that when Mr Inns had “stormed out” the pharmacy had had to be closed, in order to stay within the law, not only for the remainder of that day but for the succeeding two days, to the obvious detriment of at least one patient. Mr Inns had a contract by which he had agreed to attend not only on 30 May but also on 31 May and 1 June. He did not honour those commitments. It was unacceptable conduct for a professional man to fail to honour what he had undertaken to do.

In Mr Inns’s absence from the inquiry, said the chairman, it was difficult to decide whether this was an isolated and irrational response on his part or whether the incident was indicative of a deeper instability.

The committee was not impressed by Mr Inns’s attitude to the “most worthwhile” scheme of pharmacy error risk management undertaken by Tesco, a scheme that had secured the approval of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

“ That”, said Lord Fraser, “may be indicative of an attitude to his professional practice which he ought to re-examine”. Regretfully, it appeared that, in Mr Inns’s eyes, everyone was out of step except him. “He should understand that as a professional man, apart from anything else, it is his responsibility to get along with those who work with him in pharmacy practice.”

The committee reprimanded Mr Inns.

Reprimand from Statutory Committee for pharmacist who only paid part-time retention fee for three years although working full time

A Lincolnshire pharmacist who had only paid the fees for members working part-time over a three-year period when he had been fully employed, has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee.

At its meetings on 14 April and 18 November 2003 the committee inquired into the case of Harold Leslie Peet, of 68 Willoughby Road, Boston, Lincolnshire.

A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that that in the years 2000 and 2001 Mr Peet had paid the reduced retention fee for members working part time although he had worked more than 13 weeks in each year.

It was also alleged that he had failed to pay the balance of the retention fee for the year 2002 as soon as he had exceeded 13 weeks’ work during that year, despite having signed a declaration in the terms set out in Schedule 4 to the Byelaws on or before 18 February 2002 stating that if he were to be employed for more than 13 weeks he would remit without demand the balance of the full-time fee.

At both hearings, Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) presented the facts of the case to the committee.

Mr Peet did not attend either hearing and was not represented.

Giving the committee’s decision at the 14 April hearing, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that, as Mr Peet had paid reduced fees in 2000, 2001 and 2003 but had gone on to work for more than 13 weeks in each of those years. He had not paid the additional £60 due in 2000 and £62 in 2001 and he had not paid £81 due in 2002 immediately — or “forthwith” as the Byelaws required — although he had done so eventually. He still owed £122 to the Society.

Professional body misled

Whether it was a proper use of the Statutory Committee to be, as it were, a debt collection agency might be open to question, remarked Lord Fraser. On the other hand, Mr Peet had misled his professional body over the time he was gainfully employed: he was perfectly well aware of what was required of him in terms of payment.

In the committee’s view, that failure “just” amounted to misconduct such as to render him unfit to have his name on the register. “It is a pharmacist’s responsibility as a professional man to ensure, particularly in circumstances when he well knows what is required of him, that his professional body receives the payment it should,” said Lord Fraser.

He noted that the committee had been advised that, some 16 years previously, Mr Peet had been reprimanded after a conviction for the theft from his then employer of 500 Tenuate Dospan tablets, to which his wife had been addicted. He had been conditionally discharged for that offence; it had been said in mitigation that Mr Peet had been under considerable pressure from her at the time. The chairman said that matter was not of such seriousness as to alter its present decision.

What the committee had decided was to adjourn the inquiry for six months. If on resumption it was confirmed that Mr Peet had paid what was due to the Society, said the chairman, its sanction would be restricted to a reprimand.

When the hearing resumed on 18 November 2003, it was reported that the outstanding fees had been paid. Mr Peet was reprimanded.

Pharmacist who stole dihydrocodeine tablets given reprimand after evidence that no longer addicted

The case of a young pharmacist who took dihydrocodeine tablets from the pharmacy at which he worked to satisfy an addiction has been concluded with a reprimand by the Statutory Committee. The committee heard evidence that the pharmacist had, with support and treatment, been cleared of his drug dependency.

At its meetings on 23 April 2002 and 14 April 2003 the committee inquired into the case of Christopher Dotchin, of 166 Silver Lonnen, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Dotchin had admitted having stolen a quantity of 30mg dihydrocodeine tablets from the pharmacy at which he was employed and having been addicted to dihydrocodeine. He had received a police adult caution in respect of the admitted theft.

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

Geoffrey Knowles, of counsel, instructed by Burt Gibson Stainsby O’Neill (solicitors) represented Mr Dotchin, who was present on both dates.

At the 23 April 2002 hearing, the committee heard that Mr Dotchin had registered on 31 July 2000. He had obtained employment as pharmacist/manager at the Numark Pharmacy, Benton, Newcastle upon Tyne. Shortly after Christmas of that year, his employer noticed that his standard of work began to drop, falling to an “alarming level”. This change prompted the proprietor to check pharmacy stock and he noticed a discrepancy in stocks of 30mg dihydrocodeine tablets. The police were asked to investigate; the stock was checked on 8 April 2001 and again on 3 May 2001. A discrepancy of 1,208 tablets was found over the 24-day period.

When Mr Dotchin was confronted about the matter and arrested on suspicion of theft, he admitted the theft and also that he had an addiction to dihydrocodeine. He was released on bail and on 6 July 2001 was given a police adult caution.

The committee was told that Mr Dotchin had had, and was continuing to co-operate in, treatment for addiction and that he was receiving support from a number of sources in overcoming his problem.

Serious matter

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said the complaint against Mr Dotchin had been established. It was a serious matter that such a significant quantity of dihydrocodeine tablets had been taken by a pharmacist from pharmacy in which he worked and used for his own addiction. That conduct was such as to render him unfit to be on the register. However, the committee would not make any direction at the present hearing, but would adjourn the case for a year.

Lord Fraser said it was encouraging that a young pharmacist who had a significant problem should have received invaluable support from almost all to whom he had turned — the police, the Society’s inspector, Newcastle NHS Trust’s alcohol and drugs service at Plummer Court and, not least, his parents. The committee also noted with approval the support offered by Robert Sewell of Moss Pharmacy in providing him with employment and allowing him to build up that employment gradually.

In adjourning the case, the committee required Mr Dotchin to agree to the following conditions: first, that at the end of 12 months he would be clear of any drug taking, and had not taken drugs during that period; secondly, that he continued his treatment at Plummer Court and followed to the letter the recommendations of his psychiatrist; and thirdly, that he should remain in the employment of Moss Pharmacy throughout the 12 months or that, if he left that employment for any reason, the Society would be informed forthwith.

The chairman added that if there was any evidence of relapse into drug addiction during the 12 months the committee would reconvene the hearing and a stern view would be taken of Mr Dotchin’s fitness to practise.

At the resumed hearing on 14 April 2003, the chairman, announcing the committee’s decision, said: “When we resumed this hearing today we had before us a number of reports submitted to us and a fuller report from an inspector of the Society. They are all very positive in their conclusions and it is very clear to us that Mr Dotchin has not reverted to his dependence on drugs.”

Mr Dotchin was reprimanded and the case was closed.

Restoration to register for man convicted of deception and theft

A Wolverhampton pharmacist who had been struck off for deception and theft from the NHS, for which he had been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment (PJ, 10 June 2000, p876), has been allowed to have his name restored to the register.

At its meeting on 15 April 2003 the Statutory Committee heard an application for restoration by Samir Patel, of 41 Dudley Walk, Wolverhampton, Staffordshire. The committee had ordered Mr Patel’s name to be removed from the register in a decision on 8 December 1999.

Kristina Stern, of counsel, instructed by Penningtons (solicitors), appeared in order to present the facts of the case.

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

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that Mr Patel had been removed from the register following a substantial fraud on the NHS Prescription Pricing Authority, amounting to £14,531 in all. Lord Fraser’s predecessor as chairman of the committee (Gary Flather, QC) had described this as a “colossal breach of trust”, as indeed it was. The court at which Mr Patel had been convicted on nine counts and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment had clearly taken a stern view of the offences, while noting his remorse and the fact that he had repaid the full amount.

It was also noted that he had assisted the police in their inquiries.

Hesitation

Mr Patel’s references, both at the earlier hearing and the present one, noted that he was a doting father, religious and involved in charitable works. In spite of that, said the chairman, the committee had had some hesitation in agreeing to his restoration to the register. They were not overwhelmingly confident that he had wholly learnt the error of his ways.

Mr Patel was warned that, if ever he were to appear before the courts on comparable offences, the sentence of the court would be likely to be substantially more than six months. And if he were ever to appear before the committee again on such comparable matters, it was likely that he would be removed permanently from the register.

Mr Patel was advised to put in place, if he had not already done so, systems that could give no cause for suspicion that he might try at some point in the future again to cheat the pricing authority.

The committee directed that Mr Patel’s name should be restored to the register.