Statutory Committee

Reprimand for pharmacist after series of dispensing errors more

Restoration refused after further offences more

Name restored to register more

Reprimand for pharmacist after series of dispensing errors

After a series of hearings stretching back to 2002, a Hertfordshire pharmacist has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee for errors in dispensing and deficiencies in his practice procedures.

At its meetings on 16 September 2002, 24 February 2004 and 20 July 2004, the committee inquired into the case of Shiraz Habib Mitha, of 2 Stonemead, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire.

The first inquiry followed a complaint by the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that Mr Mitha, while proprietor and pharmacist in charge of Nu-Cross Pharmacy, 8–9 Heritage Road, Hitchin, had made a number of dispensing errors and had breached the regulations relating to the supply of prescription-only medicines.

On that occasion, the committee had postponed its decision for 12 months to enable Mr Mitha, who admitted the allegations, to remedy deficiencies found in his practice (PJ, 18 January 2003, p98).

Mr Mitha next appeared before the committee on 24 February 2004, to answer allegations by the Society of further errors in dispensing, failure to record the errors adequately and making inappropriate comments to one of the patients concerned.

The facts of the case were presented by Katrina Stern, of counsel, instructed by Penningtons (solicitors). Mr Mitha represented himself at the hearing.

The committee heard that on 19 March 2003, Mr Mitha had dispensed 56 fluoxetine 20mg capsules, labelled as 56 paroxetine 20mg tablets, in response to a prescription calling for 56 paroxetine 20mg tablets. When the Society’s inspector had visited the pharmacy on 30 April to question Mr Mitha about the incident, she noticed that no entry had been made in the error logbook he had introduced following her earlier advice relating to the importance of keeping such records.

Then, on 3 July 2003, Mr Mitha had dispensed 50 tacrolimus 5mg capsules, labelled as 50 tacrolimus 0.5mg capsules, on a prescription calling for 56 tacrolimus 500µ capsules. The patient had taken some of the 5mg capsules before returning to the pharmacy with the remainder. Mr Mitha had noticed the error and had made a record of it, although that record was incomplete.

Giving the committee’s decision on 24 February 2004, the chairman, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC, said that, instead of hearing that Mr Mitha had remedied the deficiencies found in his pharmacy, the committee had had to consider two further dispensing errors, both of which were admitted. In relation to the first one, Mr Mitha had acknowledged that he had probably remarked to the patient concerned, “We all make mistakes”. It was probably of greater significance that, if those inappropriate words were used, it was only after he had attempted to apologise to the patient. In relation to the second error, Mr Mitha had made contact with the prescriber, in spite of the patient’s reluctance that he should do so.

The committee was dismayed that, in spite of the opportunity given to him in October 2002, the Society’s inspector had identified deficiencies in Mr Mitha’s pharmacy only the week before the 24 February hearing. If the inspector had not spoken of an improvement on his behalf, the committee would have instructed the removal of his name from the register. However, exceptionally, he would be allowed another three months to put in place all the inspector’s requirements.

Lord Fraser continued: “When he next appears before us, we will not countenance any ‘ifs’ or ‘buts’ or ‘hopefullys’.” Everything must be in good order. Otherwise the committee might require to take stern action.

On resumption of the inquiry on 20 July 2004, Geoff Hudson gave the facts of the case on behalf of the Society. Mr Mitha attended, and represented himself.

Giving the committee’s decision, Lord Fraser said that shortly after the previous hearing, a Society inspector had visited Mr Mitha’s pharmacy and made a number of criticisms of what she had found. Primarily, these related to the presence of out-of-date or short-dated stock in the pharmacy, not properly separated from other stock. There was also a run-down shed in the back garden which contained out-of-date prescription medicines. The shed door was lying open and it would have been accessible to almost anyone.

“All in all,” said Lord Fraser, “this is not a particularly impressive performance by Mr Mitha.” However, he had now sold the pharmacy and played no part in running it, only intermittently acting as a locum.

It had been “a long haul” trying to get Mr Mitha to conduct his pharmacy in accordance with the best of practices, said Lord Fraser. If he had still been in control of the premises, the committee would have had very serious reservations about letting him continue.

The committee reprimanded Mr Mitha.

Restoration refused after further offences

The Statutory Committee has refused an application for restoration by a former pharmacist who had convictions for various offences both before and after his removal from the register.

At its meeting on 19 July 2004, the committee considered the application from Hafiz Noorullah, who had been struck off on 24 April 1998.

Geoff Hudson of Penningtons (solicitors) presented the facts of the case. Mr Noorullah represented himself at the hearing.

The committee heard that the inquiry at which he had been struck off had been Mr Noorullah’s third appearance before the committee. The first occasion was in 1989, when he had faced an inquiry to decide whether he should be allowed to proceed with registration as a pharmacist in the light of a conviction for theft the previous year. On that occasion he had been warned he would be in serious trouble if anything of the kind recurred.

The second occasion was in 1992, following a public order offence in 1990, just three months after he had qualified. The case was adjourned for 12 months, following which he had been reprimanded.

Mr Noorullah had then appeared before the committee in October 1997 and January 1998 in relation to convictions for receiving and retaining stolen property. His removal from the register had followed that hearing.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC, said there had been a considerable number of convictions over the years and Mr Noorullah had repeatedly been given another chance. He had convictions before the date of his removal from the register in 1998 and for offences well after his removal. There had been convictions in Kent in late 1999 or as recently as August 2000. He had done damage to the profession in general and the committee had to look at his past conduct and judge how he might conduct himself in future.

Mr Noorullah’s application for restoration was not granted.

Name restored to register

An application for restoration to the register by Robert Lewis Jones, of Neath, has been allowed by the Statutory Committee. Mr Jones’s name was removed in November 1999 following his conviction for offences related to prescription fraud for which he had been sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment (PJ, 22 January 2000, p128).

The facts of the case were presented by Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors). Mr Jones represented himself at the hearing, which took place on 19 July 2004.

Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC), said that Mr Jones had previously applied for restoration in June 2000. On that occasions Lord Fraser had pointed out that the committee, when deciding to strike off Mr Jones, had not been prepared to allow restoration in less than two years. A considerably greater period had now elapsed. It was clear that Mr Jones was deeply remorseful of his actions and the consequences of them, said Lord Fraser. The committee directed that Mr Jones’s name should be restored.