Striking-off ordered for unsupervised dispensing and lack of professional indemnity insurance cover
The Statutory Committee has ordered the removal from the Register of
Pharmaceutical Chemists of a community pharmacist who allowed an assistant
to dispense prescription-only medicines when no pharmacist was present
and who ran his company for several months without professional indemnity
cover.
On 18 July the committee inquired into the case of Alan Roch (registration
number 67574) and Honeysgreen Pharmacy Ltd. Mr Roch, who lives in Wigan,
is a shareholder, director and superintendent pharmacist of the company,
which has owned a pharmacy at 385 Eaton Road, Liverpool, since 1 September
2003. Between 8 April 1989 and 1 September 2003 Mr Roch owned the pharmacy
as sole proprietor.
The committee had received information that on 28 June 2004 at Liverpool
Magistrates’ Court, Mr Roch pleaded guilty and been convicted of
three charges of supplying medicines not on a general sale list other
than by or under the supervision of a pharmacist, contrary to Sections
52 and 67(2) of the Medicines Act 1968. He was fined £1,500 and
ordered to pay prosecution costs of £5,000.
The committee had also received a complaint from the Council of the Royal
Pharmaceutical Society alleging that misconduct such as to render Mr
Roch unfit to have his name on the Register may have been demonstrated,
individually or cumulatively, by:
· His lack of professional indemnity insurance cover between 1 April
and 16 September 2003
· His failure to ensure that non-pharmacists knew how to act in the event
of the non-arrival of a pharmacist for duty, as evidenced by the events
leading to his conviction
· His failure to take adequate steps to follow advice on the supervision
of supplies of non-general sale list from the pharmacy
The committee heard that on 4 October 2001 one of the Society’s
inspectors had visited the pharmacy because of a complaint about an attempted
unsupervised supply of antibiotic syrup to a member of the public by
a non-pharmacist member of staff. The inspector left an advice note pointing
out that any unsupervised supply of a medicine not on a general
sale list was illegal and could lead to his prosecution as proprietor
of the pharmacy. The inspector advised intensive and immediate staff
training.
On the morning of 6 August 2003, a pharmacist who had been engaged as
a locum on that day telephoned to advise that he was ill and unable to
attend for duty. Despite the lack of a pharmacist, the employee who had
been involved in the earlier incident supplied prescription-only and
other medicines to members of the public, including the supplies that
had led to the conviction.
David Bradly, for the Society, said that a police inspector had watched
the assistant dispensing the prescriptions while wearing a white coat
and a badge that identified her as a pharmacist. When he questioned her
she at first claimed she was a locum pharmacist, but when he threatened
to run a check on her she admitted she was not a pharmacist. She claimed
the badge was a private joke.
At interview with the Society’s inspector on 7 August 2003, Mr
Roch admitted that he had not issued written instructions to his staff
on what to do if no pharmacist arrived. He said he had not contacted
the pharmacy to check whether the locum had arrived.
Mr Roch told the committee that he backed up the assistant’s claim
of an in-joke but added that he was mortified when he realised she wore
the badge on that day. He said he could not understand why she had given
out medicines illegally.
He added that renewing his insurance
had slipped his mind because of a pile of paperwork.
Giving the committee’s determination, the chairman, Lord Fraser
of Carmyllie, QC, said that the advice given by to Mr Roch by the inspector
in 2001 was wise and he should have heeded it carefully. However, on
6 August 2003 the staff had no written instructions as to what to do
in the event of a no-show by a locum pharmacist. They did not even have
Mr Roch’s telephone number, and he did not phone in to check what
was going on.
What troubled the committee, said the chairman, was that in the absence
of the locum pharmacist an employee supplied prescription-only and other
medicines to members of the public while wearing a badge identifying
her as a pharmacist. “She was undoubtedly a long-standing, experienced
and valued member of his staff,” said the chairman, “but
the public have the right and the reasonable expectation to know that,
when entering a pharmacy, the individual holding himself or herself out
to be a pharmacist does indeed have not only the requisite professional
qualifications, but can
be expected to discharge the high ethical
standards which the Royal Pharmaceutical Society demands of its members.”
Commenting on the matter of indemnity insurance, the chairman said: “I
recognise it may be a hobby horse of mine, but I am shocked whenever
I encounter a pharmacist who does not hold professional indemnity cover
for his or her professional pharmaceutical activities, whether undertaken
by him or others in the pharmacy.
“Some parts of the medical and legal professions jib at the cost
of the cover and one can understand that. However, I am wholly unpersuaded
that
a competent pharmacist cannot secure appropriate cover. … The absence
of such cover could — and I stress could — be catastrophic
to the public.”
The committee would come down like a ton of bricks on those without sufficient
cover, said the chairman. Regrettably, neither Mr Roch nor the company
had any cover between 1 April and 11 September 2003. “Even if we
were to ignore his other failings to which he pleaded guilty, we would
regard this breach as so serious as to warrant the removal of his name
from the register.”
On the use of the “pharmacist” badge, the chairman said that
the committee was not persuaded by the unconvincing “private joke”.
If the badge was indeed a private joke between Mr Roch and the assistant,
why was she wearing it in his absence? No explanation was provided. Mr
Roch knew about the badge and had to take responsibility for it.
Concluding, the chairman said that the committee was left with no choice
but to direct the removal of Mr Roch’s name from the register.
As he and the company were essentially one and the same thing, no order
would be made against the company.
Mr Roch was advised that he had three months in which to appeal the decision.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal