statutory committe onto you if

[howe928]

• Making a number of dispensing errors and labelling errors
• Altering the dosage instructions for a prescription without seeking or obtaining the prescriber’s authorisation
• Supplying a Controlled Drug other than in accordance with the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001
• Failing to supply full quantities of medicine to patients without explaining that more was owing or supplying an owing slip, and making inaccurate records in the patient medication record of the quantities supplied
• Failing to ensure that the pharmacy had an adequate system in place in relation to medicines owed to customers
• Failing to ensure that the pharmacy had adequate equipment and/or systems in place for the safe extemporaneous production of methadone
• Failing to ensure that extemporaneously produced methadone was adequately labelled and adequately recorded
• Dispensing unlicensed senna tablets
• Failing to record the dates of opening of medicines that have limited shelf-life after opening
• Failing to segregate dispensary stock that had passed its shelf-life from other dispensary stock
• Failing to implement and maintain an adequate system to control and/or monitor the temperature of the pharmacy refrigerator
• Failing to apply a system to minimise the risk of dispensing errors, such as the use of “dispensed by” and “checked by” boxes on dispensing labels
• Having within the dispensary loose capsules, loose and cut blister strips, capsules of unknown provenance, manufacturers’ boxes containing strips of tablets and capsules of brands differing from those marked on the box, and manufacturers’ boxes containing strips of tablets and capsules some of which bore no batch numbers and/or expiry dates or which bore batch numbers and/or expiry dates that differed from those on the box
• Having empty medicine bottles available for use that were uncapped and vulnerable to contamination
• Submitting wrong claims to the Prescription Pricing Authority, resulting in an overpayment to company
• Relying on the statement of a prescriber’s member of staff rather than the prescriber in relation to endorsement of prescriptions for Diantte tablets
• Failing to keep knowledge up to date in relation to endorsements and the Drug Tariff
· 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
· Made several dispensing errors in which he supplied the wrong strength of product or the wrong product
· 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
· Verbally abusive towards members of staff, using offensive language and on occasion doing so in the presence of members of the public
· The supply of methadone mixture to a patient on a date not specified on the prescription and a subsequent intention to supply methadone mixture to the same patient on a date not specified on the prescription
· The supply of 56 thyroxine tablets 25µg labelled as atenolol tablets 50mg in response to a prescription calling for 56 atenolol tablets 50mg
· The supply of 46 Imdur tablets 60mg labelled as diltiazem (Tildiem) 60mg MR tablets in response to a prescription calling for 84 diltiazem hydrochloride MR tablets 60mg
· The supply of 28 Zestril, labelled as ramipril (Tritace) 5mg capsules, in response to a prescription calling for 56 Ramipril capsules 5mg
· The supply of 28 metformin tablets 500mg and an owing note for 56 metformin tablets in response to a prescription calling for 84 metformin hydrochloride tablets 850mg
· The supply of Medisense G2 sensor electrodes labelled as Medisense G2 test strips in response to a prescription calling for 4 x 50 Medisense Soft-sense test strips
· The supply to a patient of a Combivent inhaler that had been prescribed for a different patient
· signing of the label on a supply of 56 azathioprine tablets 50mg using the initials of another pharmacist
· supply of porcine isophane insulin 30/70 against a faxed prescription calling for “insulin isophane inj 100units/ml”, poor understanding of diabetes and its treatment, the manner in which dealt with the error and insistence that the faxed prescription had called for porcine isophane insulin 30/70 when it had not
· repeated supply of laxatives and/or diuretics to a patient who he knew or ought to have known was vulnerable to abuse of those medicines
· failure to ensure that his pharmacy premises were safe for the public and/or persons working there
· failure to ensure that all stock was stored appropriately
· supply of 50ml methadone mixture 1mg/1ml labelled as 50ml Oramorph 10mg/5ml against a prescription requiring 25ml Oramorph 10mg/5ml
· subsequent supply of 50ml Oramorph 10mg/5ml against the same prescription
· failure to contact the prescriber and/or to advise the child’s parents to contact the prescriber and/or to give the parents appropriate advice following discovery of the first dispensing error
· A similar failure following discovery of the second dispensing error
· return to a stock bottle of the unused methadone, knowing that the patient had consumed a dose
· failure to record the supply of the methadone in a Controlled Drugs register
· the supply of prescription-only medicines (POMs) without the authority of valid prescriptions
· having a system in place which permitted the supply of POMs to patients in circumstances where the prescriptions had not been signed by the time of supply
.making up prescriptions against unsigned forms.
· Discrepancies in the pharmacy’s receipts and supplies of Viagra tablets
· Failure to record the receipt of CDs in a CD register
· The storage of CDs to be stored in the dispensary other than in accordance with the safe custody requirements
· Failure to keep CDs returned by patients for disposal separate from pharmacy stock
· Failure to keep date-expired packs of CDs segregated for disposal from usable stock
· Supplying sildenafil tablets to a patient at a time when no valid prescription existed
· Failure to keep records of private prescriptions dispensed in the pharmacy
· Failure to remedy a deterioration in the state of the pharmacy despite a warning from one of the Society’s inspectors
.supplying a customer with methadone other than in accordance with an instalment prescription and failing to record the supply
.Failing to make records in the CD register of methadone purchases and supplies
.Failing to make records in the CD register of amphetamine purchases and supplies
· His error in dispensing Picolax sachets, labeled as such, against a prescription for Migramax sachets
· failure to contact the prescriber to ensure that what was being called for was clear and unequivocal
· failure to keep an accurate record of what was dispensed in the patient medication record
· failure to establish how much Picolax the patient had taken and any symptoms suffered
· failure to inform the patient’s GP that had taken an incorrect medicine
· failure to record the dispensing error
· His failure to provide the best possible health care to a patient (contrary to Key Responsibility 1 of the Code of Ethics and Standards)
· failure to adhere to accepted standards of professional conduct and engagement in behaviour likely to undermine public confidence in the profession (contrary to Key Responsibility 3 of the Code of Ethics and Standards)
· use of a device despite having no training or accreditation in the use of it (contrary to Part 3 of Service Specification 12 (c) of the Code of Ethics and Standards).
.received a prescription calling for two 28 simvastatin tablets 40mg. 56 citalopram 40mg tablets supplied and labelled as simvastatin (Zocor) 40mg tablets
.if a prescription called for more than 28, and that meant cutting off part of an otherwise complete blister pack, but preferred to dispense the new pack only.
.making of a 30-minute personal telephone call in the pharmacy while customers were waiting for prescriptions.
· Supplying prescription-only medicines without the authority of a prescription in circumstances where the conditions for a lawful emergency supply were not satisfied
· Supplying POMs that the patient’s GP had not intended patient to receive, without making enquiries of the prescriber when it was apparent that the medicines were different from those the patient normally received
. etc

• Failing to heed advice given by one of the Society’s inspectors in relation to a number of the above-mentioned failings

the chairman Quote ''Pharmacists would be far better advised to communicate to the Society their concerns and invite the Society to advance their concerns. I can only say that that would appear to us to be the correct way forward. The great common law of England is larded with sarcasm in decisions where common sense has not been followed and there are many instances where common sense has been followed and the law has then been changed. Nevertheless, we emphasise that pharmacists defy the law very much at their own peril and should observe the law as it is at the time.”

Reference:
http://www.pjonline.com/

[Defblade]

I'm sorry, but I completely fail to understand what you're aiming at with the above post?

[Fleegle]

I fully agree Defblade, I have no idea either... is this perhaps a catalogue of one pharmacist's errors?... or could it be an admission of self-guilt?

There may be members of this forum with direct links to the stat com etc.....who knows what the outcome of such a post may be.

[DavidS]

I fully agree Defblade, I have no idea either...

I thought the quote from the chairman at the end was worthy of you! I think it says something like: if you have to break the law, ask the regulator first what they think, and use your common sense, and then the law might get changed; but best not to break the law while its still in force, as you risk getting into a bit of trouble.

the chairman Quote ''Pharmacists would be far better advised to communicate to the Society their concerns and invite the Society to advance their concerns. I can only say that that would appear to us to be the correct way forward. The great common law of England is larded with sarcasm in decisions where common sense has not been followed and there are many instances where common sense has been followed and the law has then been changed. Nevertheless, we emphasise that pharmacists defy the law very much at their own peril and should observe the law as it is at the time.”

Its just over the hill of my understanding what is actually meant here.

[Defblade]

I thought the quote from the chairman at the end was worthy of you! I think it says something like: if you have to break the law, ask the regulator first what they think, and use your common sense, and then the law might get changed; but best not to break the law while its still in force, as you risk getting into a bit of trouble.

That's fine.... but I don't see it working in the case stated

[DavidS]

That's fine.... but I don't see it working in the case stated

well, I have to admit that I've only just realised that this referred to a specific case. I glanced at the list, and took it as being an all-inclusive list of things that would get you referred.


Its one person, is it. That's APPAULING.

I do wonder how long this had been going on for.

[dizzyb23]

The list is ONE person???????????? Wow....

[howe928]

took it as being an all-inclusive list of things that would get you referred.

the list could be longer, i just put some of them (about 2 years worth published datas) up here as a learning (warning) tool (some of the cases got referred are so commonly experienced out there),
the Lord quote was taken from one of the cases