| • Statutory Committee
• EHC
• The profession
• WCPPE
• CPD
• Premises fee
• Retention fees (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Statutory Committee
Reply from
Jeremy Holmes, Chief Executive and Registrar at the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society
|
Let off too lightly
From Mr C. S. G. Farry, MRPharmS
It is not often I have recourse to doubt the wisdom of the Royal Pharmaceutical
Society’s Statutory Committee. However, a recent decision to issue
a reprimand (PJ, 15 December 2007, p698) leaves me somewhat
puzzled as to what degree of misconduct is required before any stronger
admonishment
is dealt out.
Here we had a pharmacist who wilfully stole over £9,000
from the NHS by fraudulently claiming for items he had not dispensed.
Any member of the public stealing such an amount from an employer or
otherwise could reasonably expect a jail sentence at worst. It is indeed
an immense breach of trust.
Further to this, dispensing errors not withstanding, the pharmacist claimed
an exemption on a prescription where the patient in question had paid
the full fee, thereby putting the patient at risk of a fraud investigation
and the distress that would naturally entail.
Does the Statutory Committee really think this punishment will serve
as a deterrent to any other who wishes to follow the same path? And what
of the public who have read of this in the local press and see the pharmacist
in question continuing to practise? This reflects on all pharmacists
and does the profession as a whole a huge disservice.
The Society has
constantly and traditionally said it is there primarily to protect
the public and secondly the members. I do not see any evidence of either
in this case. Conal Farry
Leeds
| |
JEREMY HOLMES, Chief Executive and Registrar at
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, responds:
It is not the Society’s
policy to comment on individual cases. However, there are a number
of factual errors in this
letter, relating to the allegations against the registrant. I refer
Mr Farry to the Notice of Inquiry and the Statutory
Committee’s determinations
on misconduct and sanction that can be found on the Society’s
website.
The determination states:
• “This is an inquiry into allegations of erroneous endorsing
and dispensing and the inadequate disposal and segregation of returned
medicines.”
• “Dishonesty was not alleged in respect of [this or] any [other] of
the allegations contained in the Notice of Inquiry.”
• “[The registrant] had received an overpayment totalling £6,467.15
in respect of allegation 1 and £2,966.81 in respect of allegation 2.”
• “These sums have subsequently been repaid by way of deduction from
the pharmacy account. [The registrant] has not been prosecuted by the police
for this matter or indeed for any of the matters contained in this Notice of
Inquiry.”
As with all such cases, the Society has provided copies of the Notice
of Inquiry and transcripts of the determination to the Scrutiny and
Quality Division of the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence
(CHRE) at First Floor, Kierran Cross, 11 The Strand, London WC2N 5HR.
The
CHRE has jurisdiction under section 29(4)(a) of the NHS Reform and
Health Professions Act 2002 to bring an appeal against a final decision
of the Society’s Statutory Committee or Disciplinary Committee
if it considers that decision to be unduly lenient or otherwise inappropriate.
The CHRE also has the ability to issue learning points and guidance
to all the regulators over which it has jurisdiction. The Society takes
its responsibilities for public protection and regulation seriously. |
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal