Reprimand follows second failure to keep CD register
up to date
A pharmacist who was convicted and fined for a second time for failing
to maintain his Controlled Drug register properly has been reprimanded
by the Statutory Committee.
On 20 October 2004, the committee inquired into the case of Kaushik Patel,
of 16 Brinkburn Grove, Banbury, Oxfordshire. Mr Patel is proprietor of
Jessica’s Chemists in the Hardwick Shopping Centre, Banbury.
The committee was informed that on 21 June 2004 at North Oxfordshire
Magistrates’ Court, Mr Patel had pleaded guilty and had been convicted
of having, between 19 October 2002 and 11 December 2003, failed to comply
with regulations in that he failed to keep or maintain a Controlled Drug
and poisons register and the record of the methadone register, contrary
to the requirements of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. He had been fined £4,000
and ordered to pay £43 Crown prosecution costs.
The committee heard that over a period of just over 14 months Mr Patel
had failed to record about 230 purchases of CDs and more than 1,500 supplies.
The failures had come to light during a routine visit by a Thames Valley
Police chemist inspector.
The committee was told that at the time of the offences Mr Patel had
been experiencing severe problems with a severely autistic teenage son.
His wife had become unable to cope with the son at home when he returned
from a college he attended in the mornings. As a result, Mr Patel, as
well as running his pharmacy, had regularly had to care for his son in
the afternoons in a flat above the pharmacy or in a room alongside the
dispensary, where the son’s behaviour had disrupted the running
of the pharmacy.
Giving the committee’s decision, the chairman, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie,
QC, said that Mr Patel’s conviction was admitted and had been proved.
The failure to maintain proper CD records was a serious breach and amounted
to such misconduct as to render Mr Patel unfit to be on the register.
In deciding whether to give a direction to remove his name from the register,
the committee had to take into consideration the fact that it was not
the first occasion on which Mr Patel had fallen behind with his recording
keeping. On the first occasion, when he had been fined £2,000 with
costs of £35, the then chairman of the Statutory Committee had
decided to deal with the matter by way of a written reprimand.
Merciful
A letter to Mr Patel dated 25 November 1999 said that his lapses, in
allowing his CD register to be up to two years out of date, were serious
and showed that he operated a lax system. The letter warned him that
any repeat of failing to keep his registers up to date would not be
treated so leniently. The then chairman had taken a merciful course
because of domestic difficulties arising from Mr Patel’s son’s
condition.
A second minus factor, said the chairman, was the significant number
of failures to make appropriate entries.
In ordinary circumstances, a direction to remove Mr Patel’s name
from the register would have been almost inevitable. On the other hand,
he had produced good references and the police chemist inspector had
confirmed that the register was now kept up to date.
In addition, the pressures on Mr Patel’s pharmacy appeared to be
markedly reduced. The number of prescriptions per month were down to
between 3,000 and 3,500 from 4,000 when there had been a GP surgery next
door, and he had also taken on extra staff.
Most importantly, said the chairman, a detailed report from a clinical
psychologist had described a new package of care for the autistic son.
The committee had considerable sympathy for Mr and Mrs Patel in their
plight but that alone would not be sufficient to influence its decision.
However, from May 2004, the college the son attended had increased its
care to give the son individual attention and ensure his safe and full-time
attendance. A summer respite scheme had been put in place to cover the
summer holiday. Most importantly, Mr Patel had not once been called upon
to “rescue” his son during working hours since the new package
of care had been in place.
“In these exceptional circumstances, said the chairman, “with
the marked changes that have occurred since he failed to keep his register
up to date, we have come to the conclusion that exceptionally we can
restrict our sanctions to that of a reprimand. But Mr Patel should under
no misapprehension, if we every have cause to consider another complaint
about his keeping of registers that Parliament properly demands, it would
be difficult for us to deal with him as we are doing today.”
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal