Co-owner of chain of pharmacies censured after findings of professional misconduct

Seán McCárthaigh

The co-owner of a chain of pharmacies in the west of Ireland has been censured for allowing one of her outlets to remain open to supply prescription medicines to customers without a pharmacist being on the premises after she left work early.

The sanction followed a finding of two allegations of professional misconduct and poor professional performance proven against pharmacist, Martina Geraghty, by an inquiry of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (PSI).

The PSI’s Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) found Geraghty had permitted Molloys Lifestyle Pharmacy and Health Store in Ballaghaderreen, Co Roscommon to be open in the absence of a registered pharmacist on the premises on March 5th, 2020 and to allow prescription medicines to be sold to the public without the supervision of a pharmacist.

The inquiry heard that Geraghty, who is co-owner of seven outlets in the Molloys chain of pharmacies and health food stores in Mayo, Roscommon and Galway, had made certain admissions to breach the Code of Conduct for Pharmacists.

Counsel for the PSI, Eoghan O’Sullivan, said the regulatory body had been notified by a member of the public about the pharmacy in Ballaghaderreen being open on March 5th 2020, with prescription medicines being supplied to customers without a pharmacist being present.

Geraghty, who has been a pharmacist for 30 years and was working in her Ballaghaderreen pharmacy on the day, had left work early at around 5pm due to personal circumstances.

An expert witness on behalf of the PSI, Keith O’Hourihane, told the inquiry that pharmacies should be closed to the public when emergencies occur and efforts should be made to arrange for patients to be supplied elsewhere.

O’Hourihane said leaving a pharmacy open to the public with medication supplied to patients without the presence of a registered pharmacist was “a serious matter.”

He claimed what happened in relation to the pharmacy in Ballaghaderreen was completely contrary to the standards expected of a pharmacist.

The PCC rejected an application made by Geraghty’s solicitor, Maria Dillon, for the case to be dealt with by way of the pharmacist giving an undertaking about her future conduct.

The inquiry chairperson, Martin Kane, said the case was not an appropriate one to accept an undertaking.

O’Sullivan claimed Geraghty, as the pharmacist on duty, had taken a conscious and deliberate decision to absent herself from the pharmacy.

He said her actions created a risk to the public as well as putting pharmacy staff who remained on the premises in “an invidious situation.”

O’Sullivan said standard operating procedures in place, which had been drafted by Geraghty, were perfectly clear that the pharmacy should have been closed in such circumstances.

He remarked that the way she had acted had called her competence into serious question and claimed her conduct was at the upper end of professional misconduct given the dereliction of duty involved.

O’Sullivan said the PSI would have recommended her suspension but for admissions made by the pharmacist, her insight and the passage of time since the incident as well as the relatively short period of time that the pharmacy was open without her being on the premises.

He suggested that conditions could be attached to Geraghty’s registration, which would require a clinical audit of her pharmacy at six monthly intervals.

Dillon told the inquiry that a comprehensive and robust review had been carried out of patient safety issues that may have arisen from the lack of professional cover at the relevant time.

The solicitor said the allegations related to an isolated incident, although she accepted it represented a serious lapse of professional judgement.

However, Dillon said there was no pattern of conduct which should cause the PCC to have concern about Geraghty’s current behaviour or her behaviour since the incident.

She also claimed the case had taken a personal and professional toll on the pharmacist, and it was not necessary to make an example of her.

Outlining the PCC’s decision on sanction, Kane said there were several aggravating factors in the case, but also noted Geraghty had a previously unblemished career and had not come to the attention of the regulator since the incident.

While no harm had been caused to any customer of the pharmacy, Kane said the conduct at issue was still “extremely serious.”

Kane said the appropriate sanction was censure, but the PCC believed the imposition of conditions on Geraghty’s registration was not warranted as it could not identify any which could usefully be said were “required to protect the public.”

He said the committee was satisfied that Geraghty was “a safe and competent pharmacist.”