Statutory Committee

Reprimand after dispensing wart ointment in error for nasal cream more

Adjournment in case arising from a succession of dispensing errors more

Application for restoration is adjourned for a second time more

Reprimand after dispensing wart ointment in error for nasal cream

A West London pharmacist who dispensed a wart ointment, Posalfilin, in error for a nasal cream, Naseptin, and failed to respond to a letter of complaint from the patient concerned (PJ, 7 February, p167), has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee.

On 17 May, the committee resumed its inquiry into the case of Obiajulu Ejiofor, of 20 Chestnut Grove, West Norwood, London, which was adjourned on 6 May 2003.

The facts of the case were presented by Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors). Mrs Ejiofor, who attended the hearing, was represented by Denis Keegan, of counsel, instructed by Turner & Debenhams (solicitors).

The committee was told that, since the original hearing, Mrs Ejiofor had sold her pharmacy and was now working as a locum.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that, when adjourning the earlier hearing, he had indicated that while the committee would have been concerned if she had still been proprietor, there would be less concern if she worked as a locum. And, after a year, the committee would require satisfactory references and an indication that there had been no further dispensing errors or other problems.

References had been provided by pharmacies Mrs Ejiofor had worked in and from the locum agency with which she was registered, said Lord Fraser. The committee was relieved to find there had been no further errors or problems, he continued.

The inquiry was concluded by reprimanding Mrs Ejiofor.

Adjournment in case arising from a succession of dispensing errors

The Statutory Committee has adjourned for a year the case of an Oxfordshire pharmacist who had an “elongated aberration” resulting a succession of dispensing errors.

At its meeting on 19 May, the committee considered the case of Sanjay Janubhai Patel, of 15 Barlow Close, Wheatley, Oxford. Mr Patel is the proprietor of Chalgrove Pharmacy, 60 High Street, Chalgrove, Oxfordshire.

A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Patel had made a number of dispensing errors between January and September 2003.

Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), was present to place the facts of the case before the committee.

Denis Keegan, of Turner & Debenhams (solicitors), represented Mr Patel, who attended the hearing.

The committee was told that in January 2003 aspirin 75mg tablets had been included in a Nomad tray for a patient for whom they had not been prescribed and aspirin 75mg tablets had been omitted from the tray for a patient for whom they had been prescribed. In April 2003, on a prescription for an infant, hydrocortisone cream 2.5 per cent had been dispensed when 0.25 per cent hydrocortisone cream had been ordered. In May 2003, on a prescription ordering chloramphenicol eye-drops for a baby, chloramphenicol ear drops had been dispensed. And in September 2003, the medication prescribed for one patient had been supplied to a different patient.

Mr Patel had been visited by an inspector of the Society on 28 March 2003, following complaints about dispensing errors, and given advice about good dispensing and checking procedures. He had had further visits from the inspector, following more complaints, on 21 May, 9 June and 23 October 2003.

Preoccupied

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that at the time of the errors Mr Patel was refurbishing his pharmacy and seemed to have been preoccupied with the work. Not all the errors were of the same degree of seriousness but one baby had received hydrocortisone cream at a strength of 2.5 per cent when the prescription called for only 0.25 per cent.

Another baby had received ear drops when the doctor had ordered eye-drops.The ear drops had been labelled as eye-drops and used as such. On each occasion they were administered the baby had screamed.

Mr Patel’s conduct had been described as “an elongated aberration”, said the chairman. The committee, while inclined to agree with that assessment was not yet confident that the period of “aberration” was over. All the errors had been admitted; they cumulatively amounted to misconduct such as to render him unfit to be on the register.

The Society’s inspector for the area had been extremely helpful to Mr Patel and reported that nothing on his last visit to the pharmacy had caused him any concern. There did not appear to have been any further error since September 2003 and Mr Patel had radically improved his dispensing procedures.

The committee had decided to adjourn the case for a year, said Lord Fraser. If no further errors or failures in the system occurred during that time, Mr Patel could expect a reprimand. However, if any real problems continued, a more drastic remedy might have to be adopted.

The chairman added that it was now best practice in a pharmacy to record any “near misses” identified. That was a helpful way to ensure that what improvements required to be made in procedures were properly identified and acted upon. The committee encouraged Mr Patel to keep such a record.

Application for restoration is adjourned for a second time

An application for restoration to the register by Rajandra Gulubchand Shah, of 120 Golders Green Road, London NW11, has been adjourned for a second time by the Statutory Committee. Mr Shah had first applied to have his name restored in January, when it had also been adjourned (PJ, 11 September, p365).

The application was heard on 21 June. Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors) presented the facts to the committee.

David Aaronberg, of counsel, instructed by Turner & Debenhams (solicitors), represented Mr Shah, who attended the hearing.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that at the January hearing, the committee had indicated that if nothing further came to the committee’s attention before 28 May, Mr Shah’s name would be restored.

However, when he had appeared before the committee in January 2004 to apply for restoration, Mr Shah had known that he had been interviewed about counterfeit Viagra in October 2003 and he should have brought that to the committee’s attention.

Lord Fraser said that the committee could not make any conclusion about possible charges against Mr Shah but felt it could not allow his application for restoration at the present hearing. The case would be continued for three months.