Superintendent had poor English and little grasp of his responsibilities
The Statutory Committee has reprimanded a pharmacist whose problems
with the English language and poor grasp of his professional responsibilities
had led to a large number of errors and bad practices while he was
acting as a superintendent pharmacist.
The reprimand was conditional upon him undertaking to bring his English
up to an acceptable level as soon as possible and not practising as a
superintendent for at least three years, and then only on the written
advice of a Society inspector.
The inquiry concerned Gholamreza Youseffi, of Flat 33, Risborough House,
1 Mallory Street, London NW8, and Sumer Health Ltd, which owns Sumer
Pharmacy, 340–342 Harrow Road, London W9. The committee also reprimanded
the company.
The inquiry arose from a complaint by the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society, that Mr Youseffi had demonstrated
a failure to understand the responsibilities
of a superintendent pharmacist and of a
pharmacist providing professional services and/or to discharge them in
the following
respects:
· the responsibility to ensure the observance of all legal and professional
requirements in relation to the pharmaceutical aspects of the business
· the responsibility to ensure that all staff are informed of the professional
activities they are expected to undertake
· the responsibility to ensure that working conditions, facilities, equipment
and materials enable the provision of services to professionally accepted
standards
· the responsibility to ensure that pharmacists and other staff employed
by them are sufficiently competent in English
· the requirement of professional competence
that pharmacists should be ready and able to provide information and
advice about any medicine
supplied by them or under their authority and that, when giving advice
to prescribers,
patients and others, they must be able to demonstrate competence and
knowledge of medicines within the relevant therapeutic class.
When the inquiry opened on Tuesday 21 September 2004, the committee
heard that Mr Youseffi registered with the Society on 9 July 2001 and
was appointed superintendent pharmacist of Sumer Health Ltd on 5 August
2002.
It was alleged that when one of the Society’s inspectors visited
the pharmacy on 14 August 2003, she found that Mr Youseffi seemed to
have difficulty understanding spoken English and had difficulty understanding
a questionnaire that she had sent in advance of her visit. It was also
alleged that when another inspector visited the pharmacy in the guise
of a member of the public on 15 August 2003, Mr Youseffi had difficulty
in communicating clearly with her too.
During interviews with one of the inspectors on 5 September and 8 October
2003 Mr Youseffi had required the services of an Italian interpreter.
He admitted that when he had accepted appointment as superintendent pharmacist
he was not sufficiently competent in the understanding and use of the
English language. He also admitted that since registering with the Society
he had failed to undertake any activities specifically designed to improve
his competence in English.
He further admitted that when he accepted his appointment as superintendent
pharmacist he did not have a complete understanding of the responsibilities
of a superintendent as set out in ‘Medicines, ethics and practice:
a guide for pharmacists’. He also stated that he was not able to
accept greater responsibilities than checking prescriptions.
Mr Youseffi also admitted a number of specific failings, including record-keeping
and other errors relating to the supply of Controlled Drugs, record-keeping
and other errors relating to the supply of emergency hormonal contraception,
allowing the sale of a pharmacy medicine (a topical steroid product)
in an inappropriate manner, a failure to have addressed concerns raised
by the local inspector two months before her 14 August visit, a failure
to ensure that staff were sufficiently competent in English and the supply
of an inappropriate product and incorrect advice in response to a request
for malaria prophylaxis.
Giving the committee’s decision on 21 September 2004, the chairman,
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC, said that the Council found the misconduct
by Mr Youseffi proved and such as to render him unfit to be on the Register.
However, if satisfactory conditions could be settled, the committee would
restrict its sanction to a reprimand. It would adjourn the inquiry for
one month to give Mr Youseffi and his advisers time to draw up an undertaking
in relation to his future practice. In the intervening period, the only
term the committee would imply was that Mr Youseffi should not act as
a superintendent pharmacist.
Reprimanding the company, the chairman said that the committee would
not order the disqualification of its premises because it now had a superintendent
pharmacist in place who clearly understood what was required.
When the inquiry resumed on 19 October 2004, the chairman added that
the committee wanted to be confident not just that Mr Youseffi had sufficient
English to enable him to discharge the responsibilities of a superintendent
pharmacist at some time in the future, but also that as soon as possible
he understood sufficient English to enable him to communicate with members
of the public.
The chairman said: “We are concerned with the public interest,
the public safety, that Mr Youseffi truly understands what a member of
the public might be saying to him and also that he would be able to communicate
back.”
The committee gave its approval to the wording of an undertaking by Mr
Youseffi that included a requirement that he should reach Level 6 of
the International English Language Testing System at the earliest possible
date and certainly within three years.
The chairman said that, in those circumstances, the committee would conclude
the case by restricting its sanction to that of a reprimand.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal