| · Pharmacy in Spain
· Controlled drugs
· Community pharmacy
· Prescribing
· Medicines use reviews
· Safety (2)
· Supermarket pharmacy
· The profession (4)
· The Council
· Statutory Committee
· Retention fee
· Section 60 Order
· The Society
· Pfizer products
Letters to the Editor
|
Controlled drugs
A record should be kept for police inspection
From Dr I. ab I. Davies,
MRPharmS
I have been reflecting upon Cathal Gallagher’s article
on the Shipman Inquiry (PJ, 1 July, pp13–16) and I am amazed
that, after such a prolonged enquiry at an exorbitant cost (£23m), it “has
failed to close the loopholes in the regulation of Controlled Drugs used by
Shipman”.
Having identified the poor result of this inquiry I planned to act by contributing
some thoughts on the matter.
Since it is “unlawful for any person to be in possession of Controlled
Drugs other than those in Schedule 5 unless authorised to do so (Medicines,
Ethics and Practice 30, 2006), which includes those of Schedule 2 that were
used by Shipman, then it is apparent that possession is a legal matter. It
should involve, therefore, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
In my early days as a pharmacist I recall receiving visits from police inspectors
in the local constabulary who would inspect the DDA (now CD) register. If
all individuals who are authorised, either specifically by the Home Office
or by a blanket authorisation as a member of a specified class, eg, doctors,
pharmacists, etc, to be in possession of Schedule 2 CDs were required to keep
and provide, for police inspection, written or computerised records of purchases
and of sales or supply of all Schedule 2 drugs, as pharmacists are required
to do at present, then the loopholes could be closed to any physician contemplating
a Shipman episode. Where nurses or doctors administer Schedule 2 CDs, a record
of the patient’s name and address, date of administration and dose given
should also be kept. All these records should be transmitted to a specified
police station at regular intervals (eg, monthly) where they could be correlated
and any discrepancies investigated immediately.
All Schedule 2 CDs that are no longer required by a patient or authorised
individual should be returned to the pharmacy from which they were obtained,
ie, only pharmacists should dispose of Schedule 2 CDs.
As computer software becomes ever more sophisticated it might be possible
to design a program that not only records the purchase and sale or supply
of Schedule 2 CDs in the patient’s record but also enters the required
data into a separate spread sheet that could act as the “CD register” and
be available for transmission to the local specified police station. Having
recorded these thoughts I look forward to being able to evaluate the response
of the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to these suggestions.
Iolo Davies
Ballygowan,
County Down
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal