Diverting drugs is not tolerated

A recent Hearing Tribunal issued its written decisions on the merit and orders regarding the conduct of a pharmacist who stole from his pharmacy employer; diverted drugs (including narcotics, amphetamines, and erectile dysfunction drugs) for a close personal friend, family members, and himself in the absence of valid prescriptions; forged prescriptions; and created false transaction records. Refer to the Hearing Tribunal’s merits decision for a full description of the allegations and its findings.

The Hearing Tribunal found that in this matter the pharmacist’s actions had, in part, breached his statutory and regulatory obligations to the Alberta College of Pharmacy (ACP), created the potential for patient harm, undermined the integrity of the profession, failed to fulfill the professional and ethical judgement expected and required of an Alberta pharmacist, and warranted serious sanctions.

In this matter, the Tribunal imposed significant penalties. Also, the Tribunal noted the pharmacist accepted responsibility for his conduct during the investigation and did not substantively dispute the allegations. The Tribunal ordered

• a suspension of the pharmacist’s practice permit for a period of 30 months, with the suspension to occur from January 7, 2025, to July 7, 2027 (Note the pharmacist’s practice permit has been subject to conditions since April 12, 2022, imposed as a result of the allegations in this matter);
• the pharmacist successfully pass the Centre for Personalized Education for Professional’s Probe Course at his own cost, and satisfactorily complete ACP’s Ethics & Jurisprudence Exam, prior to the suspension being lifted;
• before reinstating his registration, the pharmacist must complete all ACP registration requirements;
• upon reinstating, the pharmacist’s practice permit to be subject to practising under direct supervision for a minimum of 500 hours and he must advise the licensee and proprietor of any pharmacy in which he is employed of the Hearing Tribunal’s decisions for five years;
• the pharmacist is prohibited from being an owner, proprietor, or licensee of a pharmacy for 10 years;
• a $5,000 fine;
• 25 per cent of the costs of the investigation and hearing (total costs approximately $75,000); and
• the Hearings Director to provide a copy of its written decisions and the record of hearing to the Minister of Justice.

Rationale for the Tribunal’s decision is reflected in its following statements from its September 12, 2024, decision on the merits:

• The public would expect that when providing a prescription to a patient, a pharmacist would only do so when a valid prescription exists, and that a pharmacist would be careful, in each instance, to check the validity of the prescription and to ensure that it is not expired.
• The public would expect that any patient receiving a prescription from a pharmacist would be paying the proper amount for that drug, and not receiving some of those drugs for free by the pharmacist manipulating the system and diverting drugs for free. This demonstrated an overt lack of judgement on the part of [the pharmacist] and a complete disregard for the manner in which drugs are recorded and dispensed in Alberta.
• The public would be very concerned to know that a regulated pharmacist would be able or willing to conceal the diversion of drugs by replacing the proper tablets with another tablet. The public expects pharmacists to have respect for the integrity of the medications being prescribed, and to be careful about where pills are stored, and the possibility of the wrong tablets being dispensed.
• [The pharmacist] knew, or should have known, that no prescriptions should be entered into a system if the prescriber has not authorized it – either verbally or with a written prescription. His justification, that [the doctor] had an agreement with him that he could prescribe at his own discretion, made no sense to the Hearing Tribunal and was, frankly, not credible.
• The public has the right to rely upon a pharmacy’s records to ascertain whether a drug has been properly prescribed, who the prescriber is, and how much of each medication has been provided to a patient. Patients rely on this information, but so do pharmacists, and health care professionals throughout the system. By failing in his duty to ensure accurate records and proper prescriptions, [the pharmacist] damaged the integrity of the profession.
• Pharmacists are required by their Code of Ethics to only dispense medications to family and close friends in very narrow circumstances, and only if it meets one of the exceptions set out in the Code of Ethics. The reason for this rule is to ensure objectivity and impartiality in the profession, and to allow patients to have neutral and professional care.

Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians – incorporate these lessons into your practice

1. Review, and steadfastly practise by, the principles and guidelines laid out in the Code of Ethics with regard to your responsibilities towards your patients and your profession. Principles 1, 3, and 10 must be the foundation on which all pharmacy professionals’ practise. Providing treatments, such as prescribing or dispensing for yourself or family must only occur within the very limited exceptions outlined in the Code and ACP’s updated Standards of Practice for Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians.
2. Always make patient care and patient safety central to your practice. Don’t let convenience and expediency outweigh the need to provide your patients with objective and appropriate care. Refer your patients to other healthcare providers when you cannot provide them objective and appropriate care.
3. When an error in judgement is made, even if it is initially unintentional, do not compound that error. Take responsibility for your conduct at the earliest opportunity.
4. Review, discuss with your colleagues, understand, and consistently comply with tenets of professionalism.