A Victoria pharmacist has been disciplined by his professional college after admitting to a litany of issues with his practice. Normand Joseph Richard entered a consent agreement with the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia on Jan. 20, and the terms of the document were published on the college’s website this week. According to the agreement, Richard “practised outside of his scope as a pharmacist” by diagnosing and prescribing treatment for a variety of conditions, including “traveller’s diarrhea, strep throat, skin infections, and pyelonephritis.” The document does not specify how many instances of this type of out-of-scope practice Richard engaged in, but it does enumerate the other violations he committed. On “at least 32 occasions,” Richard “provided emergency supplies of medications in a manner that contravened existing legislation,” according to the consent agreement. At least twice, he submitted claims via the province’s “Minor Ailments and Contraceptives Service (MACS)” for conditions and medications that were outside the scope of a pharmacist to diagnose and prescribe. Lastly, on at least one occasion, Richard dispensed medication without an authorized prescription, according to the document. “The registrant did not appear to understand his scope of practice as a pharmacist and failed to adhere to existing legislation that is in place to ensure safe pharmacy practice,” reads the CPBC inquiry committee’s rationale for accepting the consent agreement. “The inquiry committee considered that the registrant’s conduct appeared to demonstrate a pattern of practice that could pose an ongoing risk to public safety if not corrected. Additionally, the inquiry committee considered that the registrant’s out-of-scope practice may diminish trust in the pharmacy profession from the public and other healthcare professionals.” The document goes on to note that Richard’s conduct “did not appear to be driven by ill-intent or financial benefit,” but rather concern for the well-being of his patients. The committee considered this a mitigating factor when deciding whether to accept the consent agreement. Under the agreement, Richard pledged not to provide or dispense any medications as emergency supplies or under MACS with himself listed as the prescribing practitioner until he has completed remedial education and the college lifts this ban. He also agreed to review “legislation, standards and policies” relevant to his conduct and submit a “declaration of understanding” to the college, complete the college’s jurisprudence exam, and complete the college’s “code of ethics educational tutorial.” Richard also received a reprimand from the college, but he was not given any monetary penalties. “Overall, the inquiry committee considered the terms of the consent agreement necessary to protect the public, to uphold the integrity of pharmacy practice, and to send a clear message of deterrence to the profession against conduct of a similar nature,” the document concludes.
