Statutory Committee

Pharmacist reprimanded after dispensing error made while unfit more

Adjournment in case of pharmacist who stole Controlled Drugs more

Pharmacist reprimanded after dispensing error made while unfit

A St Albans pharmacist has been reprimanded following a dispensing error through which an eight-year-old boy received three times the dose of medication that the doctor had prescribed. The pharmacist had returned to work while “shaken and uncomfortable” after having teeth extracted.

At its meetings on 22 June and 21 July the committee considered the case of Derek Michael Evans, of 19 Carlisle Avenue, St Albans, Hertfordshire. Mr Evans is the superintendent pharmacist and director of Freeman Grieve Ltd, which owns a pharmacy at 111–113 St Peters Street, St Albans.

A complaint had been received from the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that, when he was pharmacist in charge on the evening of 7 July 2003, Mr Evans had been unfit to carry out properly his professional duties. He had dispensed Neoclarityn to a patient in a container not labelled with the directions for use requested by the prescriber.

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

Charles Apthorp, of counsel, instructed by Turner & Debenhams (solicitors), represented Mr Evans at the 22 June hearing, which Mr Evans did not attended. Mr Evans attended the 21 July hearing and was represented by Joseph Giret, of counsel, instructed by Turner & Debenhams (solicitors).

At the earlier meeting, the committee heard that on the day in question Mr Evans had had two teeth extracted under a local anaesthetic at about 2.20pm. Following the extractions, Mr Evans had been advised to take an analgesic, which he had done, but he felt “shaken and uncomfortable” for the rest of the day. However, he had returned to his pharmacy at about 5.30pm. A locum pharmacist he had employed for the day left at about 6pm and Mr Evans remained in charge of the pharmacy until shortly after 7pm. In that time he dispensed some 23 prescriptions. One of these was for a boy of eight; it called for100ml Neoclarityn syrup 2.5mg/ 5ml, with a dose of 5ml per day. Mr Evans had labelled the bottle “One 5ml spoonful three times a day”.

The child’s mother gave him the medicine according to the dose on the label between the evening of 7 July and 12 July. She reported that during that period he was unusually tearful and exhibited other abnormal behaviour.

Error admitted

The chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that although Mr Evans was not present, he had admitted the error in a statement. He had also acknowledged that he had been the pharmacist in charge of the premises and unfit to carry out properly his professional duties. Such misconduct was such as to render him unfit to be on the register.

Before the committee came to a decision the chairman asked whether anything was known in relation to Mr Evans. It was reported that Mr Evans had appeared before the committee on 17 March 2003, when he had been reprimanded for two dispensing errors (PJ, 20/27 December 2003. p851).

The committee decided to adjourn the inquiry, to ascertain the basis for Mr Evans’s non-attendance.

On the resumption of the inquiry on 21 July, Mr Evans was in attendance. The committee heard that his earlier absence had been because the advice given him about he desirability of attending had not been as clear as it might have been.

Giving the committee’s decision, Lord Fraser said Mr Evans had been extremely ill advised to return to the pharmacy on 7 July after the operation on his teeth. The dispensing error that day had been a serious one, but very different to the circumstances that had led to Mr Evans’s earlier appearance before the committee on 7 March 2003 (PJ, 20-27 December 2003, p851).

Mr Evans was reprimanded.

Adjournment in case of pharmacist who stole Controlled Drugs

A pharmacist who stole Controlled Drugs to satisfy her addiction has had her case adjourned by the Statutory Committee for 18 months.

At its meeting on 21 June the committee inquired into the case of Navjot Kaur Manku, of “Sukh Oham”, Heads Nook, Brampton, Cumbria. Information had been received that at Carlisle magistrates’ court on 4 September 2003, Miss Manku had been convicted of two counts of possessing a Class B Controlled Drug; two counts of possessing a Class C Controlled Drug and two counts of theft.

She had been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, and had to pay £272 costs. Ten additional offences were taken into consideration.

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

Sam Flew, of RadcilffesLeBrasseur (solicitors), represented Miss Manku, who attended the inquiry.

The committee heard that Miss Manku had stolen Dexedrine, temazepam and diazepam tablets for her own use from various pharmacies at which she had worked as a locum. The thefts came to light in May 2003 when stocktaking at a pharmacy in Carlisle at which she had worked revealed discrepancies in the stock of Dexedrine tablets. In a period of three weeks while Miss Manku had been in charge, a total of 392 Dexedrine tablets had been ordered and could not be accounted for. Inquiries at other pharmacies in the area also revealed discrepancies.

At the time of that investigation Miss Manku was working at Cumberland Infirmary. When her locker was searched by police officers on 23 June 2003, they found 36 Dexedrine tablets, 218 temazepam tablets and 48 diazepam tablets. Miss Manku was arrested and charged.

When interviewed, Miss Manku admitted that she had stolen the tablets from pharmacies where she had worked. The committee was told she had had difficulties in her personal life that had resulted in increasing use of alcohol while she was a student, and then of the other drugs.

Miss Manku was admitted as an in-patient to Birdsgrove House on 3 July 2003, remaining until 7 August.

Full admission

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC) said that, although Miss Manku had made a full and frank admission of her addiction, her acts of theft had been systematic. They were, however, of such a character that it was inevitable they would be discovered.

Notwithstanding the thefts, the committee would treat the case as one of addiction or as a health case. There was no evidence that Miss Manku had been selling on the drugs, nor was she charged in court to that effect.

Her response to treatment had been described in glowing terms by the co-ordinator of the Pharmacists Health Support Programme, said the chairman, and she regularly attended meetings of various support groups. She was working part-time and had good references from her present employer, who was prepared to offer her a permanent post.

However, the conviction amounted to misconduct such as to render her unfit to be on the register.

The committee proposed to adjourn the case for 18 months. During that time, Miss Manku would be expected to continue under the supervision of the health co-ordinator, and the Society’s inspector would maintain contact with her employer. In the event of a relapse, the committee would expect to be advised instantly, said Lord Fraser.

If nothing adverse was reported, Miss Manku could expect the case to be dealt with by way of a reprimand.

The hearing was adjourned.