Aggressive pharmacist is ordered to be struck off
A pharmacist who behaved aggressively towards pharmacy staff, verbally
abused Royal Pharmaceutical Society staff and insulted pharmacy customers
is to have his name removed from the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists
on the order of the Statutory Committee.
On 26, 27 and 28 September, the committee inquired into the case of Samuel
Edwin Ashby (registration number R6879), about whom a complaint had been
received from the Society’s Council.
Complaints from four pharmacies
The Council alleged that Mr Ashby’s behaviour at four different
pharmacies and his responses to complaints about his behaviour, individually
or cumulatively, may have demonstrated that he was guilty of such misconduct
as to render him unfit to have his name on the Register of Pharmaceutical
Chemists.
The Council alleged that, between August 2002 and March 2003, while employed
at a pharmacy in Weymouth, Dorset, Mr Ashby: · Told the pharmacy manager to “piss off” and, within the
hearing of customers, told a staff member to “shut up” and
used phrases such as “arrogant cow” and “stupid bitch” to
describe a customer who had just left the pharmacy
· Took for his own use a bottle of Polytar liquid and a box of Semprex
8mg tablets, both returned by patients, and consumed oxazepam 10mg tablets
and fluoxetine 20mg capsules that had not been prescribed for him
· Made several dispensing errors in which he supplied the wrong strength
of product or the wrong product
· Following one dispensing error, falsely represented to the practice
manager of the surgery from which the prescription had been issued that
the tablets had been dispensed by one member of the pharmacy staff and
then checked by another before supply of the medicine to the patient
The Council alleged that, between 28 and 31 July 2003, while employed
on a locum basis as pharmacist manager of a Moss pharmacy in Norwich,
Mr Ashby:
· Failed to assist a diabetes patient who had been supplied by the pharmacy
with test strips and lancets that were incompatible with his blood glucose
testing kit
· Despite advice from the Society’s inspector, was verbally abusive
towards members of staff, using offensive language and on occasion doing
so in the presence of members of the public
The Council alleged that, in October 2003, while working as a locum
pharmacist at a different Moss pharmacy in Norwich, Mr Ashby was verbally
abusive to the company’s area development manager in that he:
· Left a message on the manager’s mobile telephone message service
to the effect that Mr Ashby was not prepared to put up with the area
manager interfering with the pharmacy and stating that the area manager
had no idea how to manage the pharmacy and should have no authority there
· During a telephone call to the Moss regional general manager, described
the area manager as a fool and an idiot and described a female member
of the pharmacy staff as a bitch
The Council alleged that in August 2003, while employed as the pharmacist
in charge of a Moss pharmacy in Llandrindod Wells, Powys, Mr Ashby on
three occasions supplied a patient with methadone mixture other than
in accordance with a prescription issued by an appropriate practitioner
and on one occasion supplied a patient with pethidine tablets other than
in accordance with a prescription issued by an appropriate practitioner.
During a subsequent interview by Society inspectors he admitted that
he had not read the Code of Ethics.
The Council alleged that, in November 2003, while employed as a locum
pharmacist at a pharmacy in Bridlington, Yorkshire, Mr Ashby physically
assaulted a member of staff. It was further alleged that he subsequently
failed to co-operate with a Society inspector’s investigation in
that he did not respond to three letters, two of which were returned
undelivered from his registered address.
On 1 June 2005, in a telephone message left for one of the Society’s
inspectors and also in a telephone conversation with one of the Society’s
pharmacist advisers, he was aggressive, used offensive language and was
verbally abusive. He also asked for an inspector to investigate an alleged
problem at the Bridlington pharmacy, although subsequent enquiries failed
to reveal any problem of the type described.
Assault allegation denied
The committee heard that Mr Ashby admitted most of the allegations
but denied the allegation of assault.
Giving the committee’s determination on 25 October, the chairman,
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC, said that the case had lasted four days,
which was verging on the excessive when the only matter disputed was
the allegation of assault.
On the complaints relating to the Weymouth pharmacy, the chairman said
that Mr Ashby had admitted all the dispensing errors and only sought
to excuse them on the basis that they would have not been that bad if
he had not “had to suffer the abuse and disrespect for weeks and
weeks and weeks of trying to implement good standards”.
Mr Ashby had given a less than satisfactory response to the allegation
about the false representation to the practice manager, said the chairman.
Preferring the accounts of the witnesses, the committee concluded that
Mr Ashby had deliberately lied and was indifferent to the truth
in making his statement to the practice manager.
He had also removed patient returns, knowing perfectly well that he should
not do so.
With regard to the allegation of abusive language about a customer who
had just left the premises, Mr Ashby claimed that he would have said
no such thing. However, there was compelling evidence from a witness.
“In our view,” said the chairman, “Mr Ashby’s conduct
in this pharmacy in Weymouth was wholly unacceptable. He had neither
the right nor good reason to be abusive to the manager or the staff or
about customers, but — and I shall go on to narrate — he
not only ignored the good advice about being courteous as part of his
professional responsibility, received from the Society inspector, arguably,
subsequent to that advice, his conduct deteriorated further.”
The next part of the complaint related to an error made by someone else
at one of the pharmacies in Norwich. Mr Ashby declined to help even
though a simple phone call to his area development manager could have
resolved matters. He appeared indifferent to the patient’s plight. “He
not only failed to
act in the interest of a patient as his key responsibilities require,
and a diabetic one at that, but in terms of those key responsibilities
he behaved in such a way that it brought the profession into disrepute
and undermined public confidence in the profession.”
At the same pharmacy, although only weeks before he had been advised
to be courteous, he reduced members of staff to tears with his language.
The committee found both heads of complaint established.
Mr Ashby’s conduct did not much improve at another Moss Pharmacy
in Norwich. The committee was not overvexed that Mr Ashby had left a
message telling the area manager not to interfere and later told him
he did not know how to run a pharmacy, but it was unacceptable for a
professional to be rude about the area manager and to call a member of
his staff “a bitch” twice in the course of a conversation
with the regional general manager.
On the events in Llandrindod Wells, the chairman said that the medicines
concerned were not only prescription-only medicines but were Controlled
Drugs, with their own far tighter regime. The committee could not decide
whether Mr Ashby was being just cavalier with the inspectors when
he said
he had not read the Code of Ethics. However, in evidence before the committee
he had repeated that he had not read the code but followed only his own
ethics.
Finally, there was the incident at the Bridlington pharmacy, where it
was alleged that he physically assaulted a member of staff. Mr Ashby
had hotly disputed that it did not amount to an assault, although there
was no doubt that there was some physical contact between him and a member
of staff. The committee was inclined to favour the staff member’s
version but in any event his behaviour towards her was unacceptable. “It
was a petty dispute and, far from seeking to defuse the situation, he
exacerbated it.”
Finally, when a Society inspector had to investigate the alleged assault,
Mr Ashby showed absolutely no co-operation with the Society and the inspector.
The committee found the allegations established with the exception of
the alleged wasting of the inspector’s time in regard to Mr Ashby’s
own allegation about a problem at Bridlington. That was simply because
the committee was not satisfied that it knew enough to come to a conclusion,
although it was certainly clear that the inspector’s investigation
had failed to reveal any problem.
“Our conclusion,” said the chairman, “is that Mr Ashby’s
behaviour amounts to such misconduct as to render him unfit do be on
the Register. Subsequent to arriving at that decision, we have seen the
note of mitigation put forward on his behalf and have considered it very
carefully. However, we find nothing in it that would amount to mitigation
to cause us not to direct the removal of his name from the Register.
The note talks about a “possible disorder of the mind”. We
had no evidence to that effect, although we did hear him give evidence
for a day and half.
“In our view, Mr Ashby was high on
self-importance and self-pity but low on interpersonal skills. At times
his evidence was muddled, contradictory and self-seeking. It is difficult
to resist the conclusion that he had no interest but to make life as
difficult as possible for the Society.
“Accordingly, our direction is that his name should be removed from
the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists.”
Mr Ashby was advised that he had three months in which to appeal.
Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal