Statutory Committee

Reprimand after supplying a prescription-only medicine without proof that a prescription existed

The Statutory Committee has reprimanded a pharmacist who supplied a prescription only medicine to a patient without taking reasonable steps to be satisfied that a valid prescription existed and to recover the prescription.

The inquiry, which opened on 21 July 2004 and concluded on 24 February 2005, concerned John Edward Bradbeer (registration number 1034104), of Morpeth, Northumberland. It arose from a complaint by the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society alleging that, in supplying a patient with 30 clomethiazole (Heminevrin) capsules on 6 January 2003, Mr Bradbeer had failed to take reasonable steps to be satisfied that a valid prescription was in existence, had supplied the capsules without the authority of a prescription and had failed to have in place proper procedures in respect of the delivery of the medicine and the recovery of a valid prescription in respect of the delivery. It was also alleged that, in supplying a further 160 capsules on 10 January 2003, he had again failed to take reasonable steps to be satisfied that a valid prescription existed and had again made the supply without the authority of a prescription.

The committee heard that since 1973 Mr Bradbeer had been superintendent pharmacist of R. Hindhaugh (Chemists) Ltd, which owned a pharmacy in Ashington, Northumberland. On 6 January 2003 the patient had telephoned the pharmacy and asked that she be supplied with 190 Heminevrin capsules against a prescription she said had been written by her consultant psychiatrist. She said she would give the prescription to the driver when he delivered the medicines. At the time, the pharmacy was making routine weekly deliveries to her of medicines prescribed by her GP.

The patient was told that there were only 30 Heminevrin capsules in stock. No enquiries were made as to the identity of her consultant psychiatrist. On the basis of the telephone conversation, Mr Bradbeer arranged for her to be supplied with 30 Heminevrin capsules, which he labelled with the direction that two were to be taken at night.

The capsules were given to a taxi driver, whom Mr Bradbeer was subsequently unable to identify. He failed to instruct the taxi driver as to the steps he should take in the event that the prescription was not available. The taxi driver delivered the medication but failed to return with a prescription.

On 10 January 2003, when Mr Bradbeer had still not received the prescription, the patient telephoned the pharmacy and requested the balance of 160 capsules. Mr Bradbeer asked about the prescription and was told that it had been given to the driver. He then made a supply of a further 160 capsules, which he labelled with the direction that four were to be taken at night. At no time did Mr Bradbeer receive a prescription in respect of either supply.

At the 24 February 2005 hearing, Geoff Hudson, of Penningtons (solicitors), for the Society, told the committee that before the end of 2004 Mr Bradbeer had sought to retire from the register and had returned his registration certificate. But, pending the outcome of the inquiry, his name had not been removed from the register.

Misconduct established

Giving the committee’s determination, the chairman, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, said that Mr Bradbeer had admitted misconduct and the committee found the misconduct established. The misconduct was such as to render Mr Bradbeer unfit to be on the Register.

The chairman said that the committee had received notice from Mr Bradbeer (who was not present or represented) that that he had sold his pharmacy, had completed a four-month consultancy role with the purchaser of the pharmacy which he had undertaken to do and had not only returned his certificate to the Society’s Registrar but had indicated that he had no intention of resuming practice. On that basis, the committee would conclude the matter by delivering a reprimand. That being so, it now enabled the Registrar to remove his name from the Register because he had not paid. There were no outstanding matters.

The chairman added: “I have to say that it seems to me clear that there is a small risk that we are taking, in that if Mr Bradbeer decides subsequently that he wishes to have his name on the Register again, on submission of the appropriate fee we cannot prevent that happening. However, I have strongly in mind that his solicitor on his behalf indicated that he does not intend to resume practice. I understand that the safeguard might be more limited than I had hoped, but if he were to exercise such a choice he would have to undergo some sort of test of fitness to practise. However, that is not a matter that would come to us.”

The chairman expressed a hope that, under the Society’s new regulations, its disciplinary committees would not have to hold up the retirement of someone who wished to retire. It had to be in the public interest that they did retire because, if the committee ordered a striking-off, the pharmacist would have up to 90 days in which to appeal and then a further eight or nine months before the appeal reached the courts. He would therefore have at least a year in which he could continue in practice. There should be a simple provision that someone who acknowledged his misconduct but wished to retire should be allowed to do so. If that person, for good reasons or bad, at some subsequent point wanted to return to the Register, then the case should be brought back to the committee. But currently, unless the committee adjourned a case indefinitely, there was no way to secure that.