| · Controlled drugs
· Pfizer products
· Counterfeit medicines
· The profession
· Statutory Committee
Letters to the Editor
|
The profession
Reluctant to help GMC again
From Mrs E. Homer, MRPharmS
I recount a salutary tale for any pharmacist performing his or her professional
responsibilities.
Just over two years ago I identified a patient who was “double-scripting”.
The patient presented a private prescription for dihydrocodeine and diazepam
from a doctor in London. This patient was also registered with one of
the local GP practices. After speaking to the patient’s GP who
was unaware of any other doctor prescribing for his patient, I contacted
the police drug officer. The case was investigated and sometime later
I was asked to give a written statement to a solicitor at the General
Medical Council. About 12 months ago I received a letter from the GMC
saying that I would be required to give evidence in person at a fitness-to-practise
hearing against the doctor under investigation. I spoke to the GMC several
times to confirm that I would be needed in person and it was categorically
confirmed on each occasion that this was the case. I was instructed to
book the time off work for the duration of the hearing.
After the hearing I completed an expenses form and submitted it to the
GMC. The GMC does not recognise pharmacists as professional people and
will only pay about £50 per day loss of earnings. (I expect plumbers,
electricians, etc, would also be disappointed with this). I have written
and explained that in order to practise a pharmacist has to be registered
with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and pay an annual membership fee.
Despite this information the GMC is still disputing my claim for locum
rates.
The whole exercise has cost me in the region of £1,000 (two days
loss of earnings, hotel accommodation, travel costs, etc, to London)
and so far I have received nothing.
In view of my experience I would be reluctant to get involved with such
a case again. Incidentally the doctor in question was reprimanded by
the GMC and banned from prescribing opiates and benzodiazepines in the
future — so at least the general public are being protected thanks
to my vigilance.
Eleanor Homer
LLangattock, Monmouth
| |
PETER SWAIN, head of case presentation at the General Medical Council,
responds:
Because we are unable to see the name of the correspondent
when issuing this response we are unable to identify the particular
case that
they are referring to and therefore cannot directly respond to the
points raised.
We are grateful for the assistance of witnesses in helping our fitness-to-practise
procedures and we certainly do not wish to see people left out of pocket
by attending a hearing. We must comply with the requirements of the
Inland Revenue and, as
a registered charity, the Charity Commission, so we only reimburse expenses
within a defined policy. Our rates for loss of earnings are taken
from the rates paid
to witnesses in criminal or civil court proceedings. This includes an enhanced
rate for professional witnesses such as pharmacists. We are unable to pay
above the court rates for notional loss of earnings where no locum
was engaged; we
will reimburse the reasonable costs of a locum for a pharmacist or other
professional witness on receipt of evidence of the actual cost incurred
in engaging the locum.
We would welcome the opportunity to review the relevant claim if the person
concerned contacts us directly. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal