Tipperary pharmacist censured for allowing shop to operate with no registered pharmacist
An inquiry by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (PSI) found Denis Finnerty of Mockler’s Pharmacy, Patrick Street, Templemore, Co Tipperary, guilty of poor professional performance. File picture: PA
A Tipperary pharmacist has been censured by his regulatory body over allowing medicine to be sold from his pharmacy without having a registered pharmacist on the premises to personally supervise the sale.
An inquiry by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (PSI) found Denis Finnerty of Mockler’s Pharmacy, Patrick Street, Templemore, Co Tipperary, guilty of poor professional performance.
The inquiry by the PSI’s professional conduct committee found the allegation proven that Mr Finnerty had failed to ensure that a pharmacy-only medicine – a pack of Zirtek Allergy Relief 10mg tablets – was sold by or under the personal supervision of a registered pharmacist on July 18, 2019.
Counsel for the PSI, barrister Caoimhe Daly, said the allegation meant Mr Finnerty was guilty of poor professional performance because he failed to meet the standards of competence that might reasonably be expected of a registered pharmacist.
A full admission in respect of the allegation was made by the pharmacist who also accepted that it constituted poor professional performance. Details of the inquiry which was held last April have only just been published by the PSI.
The inquiry heard that a PSI-authorised officer, Pádraig Corbett, called to Mockler’s Pharmacy on July 18, 2019, to carry out a test purchase to verify that the sale and supply of medicines took place under the personal supervision of a registered pharmacist as well as to conduct a routine pharmacy inspection.
Mr Corbett witnessed the pharmacy being opened at 9.35am and he entered it 10 minutes later where a staff member stopped vacuuming to ask if she could assist him.
The PSI official asked for Zirtek tablets, paid for them and was given a handwritten, stamped receipt after being informed that the till receipts were not working at the time.
Mr Corbett noticed Mr Finnerty arriving in his car as he left the premises before re-entering the pharmacy at 9.50am and identifying himself to Mr Finnerty and explained he was there to carry out a routine inspection.
The inquiry heard the pharmacist was co-operative and helpful throughout the inspection which raised no issues of concern.
However, the committee was informed that the PSI had also recorded two previous occasions in August 2014 and January 2015 when Mockler’s Pharmacy was found to be selling medicines without being under the personal supervision of a registered pharmacist.
The inquiry heard that the PSI had taken a prosecution against Mr Finnerty for offences under the Pharmacy Act in March 2016 which resulted in conviction and fines.
Denis Finnerty's testimony
Mr Finnerty told the PSI that he was late arriving at the pharmacy on July 18, 2019, due to roadworks on his way from collecting goods from his other pharmacy.
The pharmacist claimed he had made great efforts given past events to bring the Templemore pharmacy into compliance with all requirements.
Mr Finnerty said he took the matter very seriously and pointed out that it was the first time in a number of years that it had happened and assured the PSI that it was a “one-off occurrence”.
An expert witness, Ronan Quirke, said pharmacies were heavily regulated entities which dispensed medicines that could not be regarded as normal commercial items.
Mr Quirke pointed out that the legislation is clear that a pharmacy cannot open in the absence of a pharmacist and it is the responsibility of a pharmacist to ensure that policies and procedures are followed.
In evidence, Mr Finnerty said he believed the standard operating procedure of how the pharmacy could never be opened without him or another pharmacist being present was operational, robust and effective at the time.
However, he said he considered that such a procedure had now been “strengthened” as were provisions relating to keyholders. Mr Finnerty admitted he believed an incident like that would not have arisen again as his staff knew that he had been convicted in the past for similar offences.
“I thought that I had given enough information to the staff that they would realise the seriousness of having the shop open without a pharmacist being present,” he added.
Mr Finnerty’s wife, Dorothy Mockler, who is also a pharmacist, said there was a challenge in being forceful with their staff as she knew some of them since she was a child.
At the outset of the hearing, an application by the pharmacist’s solicitor, Denis Keane, to have the inquiry held in private was rejected by the committee.
In the decision to censure Mr Finnerty, the committee’s chairperson, Dermott Jewell, said the paramount objective was protecting the public and maintaining public trust and confidence in pharmacists and the PSI.
“The sanction should send the appropriate message to Mr Finnerty and to the wider profession as to the seriousness of the finding,” said Mr Jewell.
He said it was remarkable that there was no evidence of any attempt by Mr Finnerty to establish from his staff what had gone wrong on any of the occasions.
Mr Jewell said the findings and the pharmacist’s limited insight into his wrongdoing had given rise to significant concerns which required conditions to be attached to his registration in order to effectively address the root causes of his poor professional performance.
The conditions attached to Mr Finnerty’s registration include taking a professional development programme under the guidance and supervision of a pharmacist approved by the PSI.
