Statutory Committee

Pharmacist struck off for stealing £40 from employer more

“Tangle of evidence” on dispensing error results in dismissal of case more

Pharmacist struck off for stealing £40 from employer

The theft of £40 from her employers has led to the removal of a pharmacist’s name from the register.

When the committee met on 23 October 2003 it considered the case of Samina Sheikh, of 87 Draycott Avenue, Kenton, Harrow, Middlesex. Information had been received that on 16 December 2002 at Harrow magistrate’s’ court, Miss Sheikh had pleaded guilty to and been convicted on two counts of stealing the sum of £20 from Boots The Chemists Ltd.

She had been fined a total of £150 and ordered to pay £40 compensation to Boots and £118 costs.

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

Miss Sheikh attended the inquiry and represented herself.

The committee heard that the thefts had taken place on 7 and 8 November 2002, and had been observed on cameras placed in the pharmacy where Miss Sheikh had been working.

Breach of trust

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said the thefts were a breach of the trust her employers had, properly, assumed they could place in her. The issue was not the competence of Miss Sheikh as a pharmacist; there was no question over that. Indeed, she had been employed by Boots for some 14 years. The issue was whether she had been dishonest and had brought her profession into disrepute, and to what extent. She had acknowledged that she had let the profession down.

The combination of theft, breach of trust and disrepute into which she had brought the profession meant that the committee had to order the removal of Miss Sheikh’s name from the register. She was young and should not overlook the possibility of restoration to the register at some future date.

The Chairman went on to add that the committee was not entirely comfortable about the time the case had taken before being heard. Miss Sheikh had not worked since the incident and even if she were to apply successfully for restoration at some point, the outcome would be that she had been off the register and out of employment for a relatively long period.

Miss Sheikh’s name was ordered to be removed; she had three months in which to appeal.

“Tangle of evidence” on dispensing error results in dismissal of case

The case against a superintendent pharmacist following a dispensing error at one of his company’s pharmacies has been dismissed after the Statutory Committee was unable to unravel a “tangle of unsworn evidence”.

When it met on 17 September 2003 the committee concluded its inquiry into the case of Divya Tanna, of 314 Sangley Road, Catford, London, and Elgin Court Ltd, of the same address. A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Tanna, as superintendent pharmacist of the company, had failed to ensure that the correct medicines had been supplied to a patient by one of the company’s four pharmacies, Rabbett Pharmacy, 401 Queens Road, New Cross, London, and had failed to identify the pharmacist responsible for the error.

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

David Reissner, of Charles Russell (solicitors), appeared on behalf of Mr Tanna, who attended the inquiry, and the company.

The committee heard that on 21 December, 2001 a prescription for 56 phenytoin sodium capsules 100mg, two to be taken at night, had been presented at the pharmacy. Fifty-six Epanutin capsules, 300mg, had been dispensed in error, labelled as phenytoin 100mg. The pharmacist in charge on that day had been Victor Frome and Mr Tanna had also visited the pharmacy during the day. It had been particularly busy, with many prescriptions waiting to be dispensed.

The patient in question had taken two of the 300mg capsules each night between 21 December 2001 and 7 January 2002. From about 25 December she had experienced a number of falls and an impairment of mobility on her left side. A serious cut to her head caused by a fall on 7 January resulted in her admission to hospital, where the dispensing error was identified by hospital staff.

Mr Tanna had told the Society, in a letter dated 4 December 2002, that he had not dispensed any prescriptions when he visited the Rabbett Pharmacy on 21 December the previous year. He had accepted that if a better audit trail had existed at the time there would have been no doubt as to who had dispensed the prescription. He also accepted that, as superintendent pharmacist, he was ultimately responsible for the observance of legal and professional requirements in relation to the pharmaceutical aspects of the business. As a result of that incident, Mr Tanna said he had introduced a dispensing error report procedure.

The case was adjourned for a month.

Muddy audit trail

Giving the committee’s decision on 21 October 2003, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said there was a conflict in the evidence given in the case on a crucial fact; namely, whether Mr Tanna had participated in dispensing on the day the error had been made. This, in consequence, muddied the audit trail leading to the identification of the pharmacist responsible for the error that had occurred.

It was undisputed that the prescription had been taken to the pharmacy on 21 December 2001, by the patient’s husband, and the patient medication record showed the time of dispensing as 1.41 and 47 seconds in the afternoon. Mr Tanna had visited the pharmacy at some time during that day but the exact time of his visit, and whether he did any dispensing, was disputed. The dispensing assistant gave evidence that he had come in “about late morning to lunchtime” and had been there about two hours.

That, said Lord Fraser, was the high water mark of the Society’s case because it would have placed Mr Tanna in the pharmacy at the time the prescription was dispensed.

Mr Frome, the pharmacist on duty on the day in question, had, however, been more equivocal. In his evidence he had said he was sure that Mr Tanna had dispensed on that day and that he had come in “about midday to lunchtime”. But his evidence was qualified by a statement in a letter written on his behalf to the Society’s inspector involved in the investigation, in which Mr Frome had indicated that he could not actually remember Mr Tanna dispensing prescriptions on that day.

Another assistant in the pharmacy had said that, while Mr Tanna had visited the premises “about lunch time”, he had not dispensed on that day; that was supported by another member of staff. Employees at other pharmacies in the group, visited on the same day by Mr Tanna, gave timings of his visits that would have made it impossible for him to have been at Rabbett Pharmacy at1.41 and made the actual error.

The chairman continued, “We find it impossible to unravel this tangle of unsworn evidence”. The committee would give Mr Tanna the benefit of the doubt, and could not conclude he had been guilty of any misconduct. The case was dismissed.

Lord Fraser indicated that the committee was not entirely comfortable with that “necessary conclusion”. Mr Tanna, as superintendent pharmacist, should have in place a system enabling him to identify any pharmacist under his supervision who might have made a dispensing error. If he wished to avoid further appearances before the Statutory Committee, he should order the affairs of the four pharmacies of which he was superintendent so that the problem could not occur in future, he advised.

No action was taken against the company.