NI Pharmacist Censured After Supplying Discontinued Furosemide Without Valid Prescriptions
Date of Decision: October 27, 2010
Registrant's Role: Pharmacist
Allegations:
- On three occasions between 12 May and 19 August 2009, the registrant dispensed furosemide other than in accordance with a prescription, allegedly contravening section 58 of the Medicines Act 1968.
- On each occasion, the registrant failed to ensure that a valid prescription was in their possession before dispensing.
- The registrant failed to take proper or adequate steps to contact the prescriber to establish whether the patient should continue receiving furosemide.
- The registrant allowed the patient to continue taking medication that the GP had specifically discontinued because of an electrolyte imbalance.
- The patient was admitted to hospital with severe hypokalaemia on 12 June and 24 July 2009. The GP practice was unaware that the patient was still taking furosemide, and it was unclear whether the hospital knew. This potentially affected effective diagnosis and treatment.
- The registrant failed to comply with the applicable principles and obligations of the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland’s Code of Ethics and Practice.
Outcome: Censure (warning)
GPhC Standards Breached:
- Principle 3 – Have regard to applicable laws and regulations, maintain a high standard of professional conduct, avoid undermining confidence in the profession, and ensure an efficient pharmaceutical service.
- Principle 9 – Endeavour to cooperate with professional colleagues and other healthcare professionals for the benefit of patients and the public.
Case Summary
Allegations
A Northern Ireland pharmacist faced fitness to practise proceedings after supplying furosemide to a patient on three occasions without ensuring that valid prescriptions were available. The supplies occurred between 12 May and 19 August 2009. The central concern was that the patient’s GP had specifically discontinued the medicine because of an electrolyte imbalance, yet the patient continued receiving and taking it.
The allegations covered both the authority for dispensing and the registrant’s clinical and professional responsibilities. The notice alleged that the supplies were made other than in accordance with a prescription, in contravention of section 58 of the Medicines Act 1968. It separately alleged that the registrant failed to have a valid prescription in their possession before each dispensing episode.
Continue Reading the Full Case
Create a free account or log in to access the complete case summary.
- Full allegations considered by the GPhC/PSNI
- Panel findings and reasoning
- Outcome of the investigation
- Sanctions considered and imposed on the Pharmacist
- Key professional learning points
Original Case Document
The original determination document is available to registered users.