“Shambolic” procedures lead to striking-off
A Greater London pharmacist whose repeat dispensing procedures were
described as shambolic has had his name removed from the Register of
Pharmaceutical
Chemists on the order of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Statutory
Committee.
At a hearing over three days in November and December 2007, the committee
inquired into a complaint by the chief pharmacist of Harrow Primary Care
Trust against Sirtaj Allana (registration number 72407), proprietor of
a pharmacy in High Street, Pinner.
The complaint alleged that Mr Allana had failed to operate safe procedures
in that:
• He assembled compliance aids by reference to manuscript patient records
rather than by reference to prescriptions
• He had no system for reconciling the drugs he supplied against prescriptions
• He did not routinely check prescriptions received against his patient
records before assembling compliance aids
• He had on occasion altered the form or dose regimen to suit a patient
or the compliance aid without consulting the prescriber
• He failed to ensure that the manuscript patient records were kept up
to date
The complaint went on to set out specific allegations relating to 22
different patients. It also alleged that Mr Allana had ignored written
and verbal advice from a Society inspector regarding labelling requirements
for compliance aids. The allegations represented a number of breaches
of the Code of Ethics and Standards and of the Medicines Act 1968 and
Regulations made under the Act.
Giving the committee’s determination on 13 December 2007, the chairman,
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, QC, said that Mr Allana had admitted most of
the complaints. In essence, he had dispensed repeat medication without
the authority of a valid prescription, including some medicines for which
there had been no valid prescription for years.
The chairman said that counsel for the Society had described Mr Allana’s
dispensing arrangements as shambolic. Compliance aids for 15 patients
contained one or more medicines for which no valid prescription was held.
Errors were found in the manuscript patient records for 14 patients.
For five patients there were errors in the medicines dispensed in compliance
aids and for six there were labelling errors. And there were further
irregularities, although comparatively minor.
The chairman added that at least one GP practice had not come out of
the extended investigations smelling of roses.
Concluding, the chairman said that, because of the extensive nature of
the admitted errors, it would be perverse not to conclude that Mr Allana
was unfit to have his name on the Register. In mitigation, Mr Allana
had many fine references, but against that was a reprimand
by the committee on a previous occasion (PJ, 1 December 2001, p800). In view of that,
the committee had no option but to direct his removal from the Register.
Mr Allana was advised that he had three months in which to exercise his
right of appeal. His name was removed from the Register on 13 March 2008. Back to Top
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal