Statutory Committee

Pharmacist given reprimand after failure to co-operate with inquiry into dispensing error

A pharmacist who failed to co-operate with a Royal Pharmaceutical Society inspector’s investigation into a dispensing error has been reprimanded by the Statutory Committee.

On 23 February, the Statutory Committee considered a complaint by the Council of the Society against Rashmikant Bhogilal Patel (registration number 70694). The Council alleged that misconduct such as to render Mr Patel unfit to have his name on the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists may have been demonstrated by his dispensing error and his subsequent behaviour.

The Council alleged that, on 2 January 2004, at a pharmacy owned by him in Sydenham, London SE26, Mr Patel had received a prescription calling, inter alia, for two 28 simvastatin tablets 40mg. Instead of supplying simvastatin Mr Patel supplied 56 citalopram 40mg tablets labelled as simvastatin (Zocor) 40mg tablets — contrary to Sections 58(2)(a), 64(5) and 85(5) of the Medicines Act 1968 and Part 2(A.2)(a) of the Society’s Code of Ethics and Standards. When the patient consumed one of the citalopram 40mg tablets on 20 January 2004, she suffered diarrhoea and nausea.

The Council further alleged that, following the dispensing error, the Society’s inspector for the area attempted to contact Mr Patel on a number of occasions between 19 July 2004 and 14 February 2005 regarding a formal interview. After telephoning on three occasions, he sent a letter by special delivery on 4 October 2004 requesting an interview and asking Mr Patel to let him know in writing if he did not wish to be interviewed. After another unsuccessful telephone call, he sent a further letter by special delivery on 20 December 2004 asking Mr Patel to reply by return stating whether he was willing to be interviewed. Eventually, after a further unsuccessful telephone call on 14 February 2005, the Society received a letter from Mr Patel on 3 March confirming that he did not wish to be interviewed. The letter was dated 22 January 2005 but Mr Patgel subsequently admitted that it had not been posted before 13 February 2005. The Council alleged that this action by Mr Patel was contrary to Key Responsibility 3 of the Society’s Code of Ethics and Standards for pharmacists.

Giving the committee’s determination, the chairman, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC, said that, after the patient had reported the error, Mr Patel had admitted almost immediately to the inspector that he had been on duty at the material time and was responsible for the error. But subsequently he had failed to respond to a number of phone calls and special delivery letters.

“If I have understood the situation correctly,” said the chairman, “his failure to do so was in part because he thought he had made adequate admission at that first interview. However, Mr Patel now admits that he should have responded to these requests to be interviewed or at least replied after taking legal advice but he did not do so. This, he accepts, was indeed a breach of Key Responsibility 3 imposed upon pharmacists, as the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has alleged.”

In all, said the chairman, taking the error and the lack of co-operation together, the committee considered Mr Patel’s conduct to be such as to render him unfit to be on the Register. However, because no other misconduct by Mr Patel was known, the committee would restrict its censure to that of a reprimand.

The chairman added: “Mr Patel seemed to think that a function of this committee was to help him organise his pharmaceutical business better. That might not be presumptuous of four members of the committee but two, including myself, are lay members and it would indeed be presumptuous of us to advise any pharmacist about how they might better or best organise a pharmacy business.

“All we can advise is that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society — through ‘Medicines, ethics and practice: a guide for pharmacists’, through its inspectorate and through the fact sheets which are regularly provided — offers a broad base of advice both in terms of best practice and requirements on a pharmacist if he or she wishes to continue to remain on the Register.”