Complaints Outcomes

Search

Search Results

Search Again
Liang, Henry Yu Qu (Sep 24, 2020)
  1. Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (the “College”) conducted an investigation into the practice of Henry Yu Qi Liang (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183.

    The Inquiry Committee and the Registrant have agreed to resolve all matters arising from the investigation by way of a Consent Agreement under section 36(1) of the Health Professions Act.

  2. Effective date: September 24, 2020

  3. Name of registrant: Henry Yu Qu Liang

  4. Location of Practice: Vancouver, BC

  5. The College’s Investigation:

    Multiple registrants were involved in this matter.

    The College’s investigation found that between January 2012 and June 2018, over 20,000 false transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records at two pharmacies where the Registrant had worked as a staff pharmacist. These transactions were considered false because:

    • Schedule I (prescription) medications associated with these transactions had not been authorized or prescribed by the prescriber associated with each transaction;
    • Medications associated with these transactions, which included Schedule I, Over-The-Counter (“OTC") medications and vitamins, were not actually dispensed to the “patient” in each case;
    • Transactions were processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies, for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts; and
    • Transactions were processed not for the purpose of providing health care and were not processed with each patient’s voluntary consent;
       

    The College’s investigation also found that during the same time period, over 10,000 transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records for medications that were actually authorized but processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies when there was no clinical indication to do so. The medications for these transactions were not actually dispensed to the patient on a daily or weekly basis, making each patient’s PharmaNet records inaccurate and not current. These transactions were processed in this manner for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts.

    The “patients” whose PharmaNet records were affected were all either current or former employees of the two pharmacies, or family members of former employees of the two pharmacies. Reportedly, the owner of the two pharmacies had directed for transactions to be processed in the above manner in order to artificially inflate prescription counts at both pharmacies.

  6. The Registrant's involvement and acknowledgments:
    Regarding the Registrant’s involvement in this matter, the Inquiry Committee considered it substantiated, and the Registrant has acknowledged, that:

    1. He processed false transactions for Schedule I and OTC/vitamin medications on the PharmaNet records of his colleagues;

    2. He processed one-day supply transactions for Schedule I and OTC/vitamin medications on the PharmaNet records of his colleague’s family members, where these medications were not actually dispensed to the patient on a daily basis, making the patient’s PharmaNet records inaccurate and not current; were all processed as one-day supplies for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts; and were not clinically indicated to be dispensed on a daily basis;

    3. He backdated PharmaNet transactions, meaning that the transaction records were created on a date later than the date that appears on PharmaNet;

    4. He billed the false and inaccurate transactions described above to PharmaCare and/or third-party insurance plans, when he knew these to be false or misleading claims;

    5. He inappropriately used personal health information and created inaccurate PharmaNet records, placing his colleagues and his colleagues’ family members at risk of harm, in case their PharmaNet records ever needed to be accessed for legitimate medical reasons; and

    6. He failed to report to the College or to another person of authority regarding the improper practices occurring at the pharmacies, even though he knew that these practices were improper.

  7. Disposition:

    The Registrant entered into a Consent Agreement with the College’s Inquiry Committee, wherein the Registrant consented to the following terms (in part):

    1. To successfully complete and pass an ethics course for healthcare professionals within two years. If he fails to complete this within the specified time period, his registration will be suspended for a period of 60 days;

    2. To appear before the Inquiry Committee for a verbal reprimand;
       
    3. To have a letter of reprimand placed permanently on the College register;
       
    4. To not be a pharmacy manager and/or a preceptor for pharmacy students for a period of 180 days (September 24, 2020 to March 23, 2021);

    5. To pay a $1000.00 fine;

    6. To successfully pass the College’s Jurisprudence Exam; and

    7. To successfully complete and pass the “BC Community Pharmacy Manager Training Program” offered by the British Columbia Pharmacy Association.

  8. Rationale:

    The Registrant’s actions were considered serious contraventions of legislation involving pharmacy practice standards and the appropriate access, use and protection of personal health information and PharmaNet records. His misconduct placed others at risk of harm. The Registrant also contravened standards of the Code of Ethics involving protecting and promoting the well-being of patients, benefitting society, committing to personal and professional integrity, and participating in ethical business practices.

    In determining an appropriate disposition for the Registrant, the Inquiry Committee considered the Registrant’s report of feeling pressured by his employer (the pharmacy owner) to commit these actions, and that he personally did not stand to gain financially from what occurred.

    The Inquiry Committee considered the terms of the Consent Agreement necessary to protect the public, as well as send a clear message of deterrence to the profession. Inappropriate access and use of personal health information compromises the public’s trust in the pharmacy profession as a whole. At all times, registrants must uphold legislative requirements and ethical obligations to appropriately access, use and protect personal health information.

Ali, Mir Rashid (Sep 21, 2020)
  1. Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (“CPBC”) conducted investigations into the practice of Mir Rashid Ali (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 (“HPA”).  The CPBC issued a Citation on February 24, 2020.

    Further to a proposal for resolution from the Registrant, the Inquiry Committee made a Consent Order under section 37.1 of the HPA.

  2. Effective date: September 21, 2020

  3. Name of registrant: Mir Rashid Ali

  4. Location of Practice: Vancouver and Surrey, BC

  5. Admissions and Acknowledgements:

    The College organized and conducted undercover investigations into three pharmacies where the Registrant was involved as an owner, manager, and working pharmacist.

    The Registrant has admitted and/or acknowledged the following (in part):

    1. In the course of the undercover investigations organized by the CPBC, the Registrant
       
      1. upon request, agreed to provide undercover investigators with cash as an incentive to continue delivering his prescriptions to one of the pharmacies the Registrant owned and where he was the manager and working as a pharmacist, and advised the investigator how to daily dispense from a prescriber so that the investigator could be paid more cash as an incentive to continue delivering his prescriptions to the pharmacy, contrary to Standards 1, 2, 6, 7, and 9 of the Code of Ethics, section 15 of the Standards of Practice, and what was then section 3(2)(aa) and is now section 18(2)(z) of the PODSA Bylaws,

      2. on multiple occasions, provided cash to two undercover investigators acting as patients as an incentive for them to continue delivering their prescriptions for dispensing at pharmacies the Registrant owned and where he was the manager and working as a pharmacist, contrary to Standards 1 (a) and (d), 2, 6, 7, and 9 of the HPA, Bylaws Schedule A – Code of Ethics (the “Code of Ethics”), section 15 of the HPA, Bylaws Schedule F, Part I – Community Pharmacy Standards of Practice (the “Standards of Practice”), what was then section 3(2)(z) and is now section 18(2)(aa) of the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act – Bylaws (the “PODSA Bylaws”),

      3. met with one of the undercover investigators in a car outside one of the pharmacies the Registrant owned and where he was the manager and working as a pharmacist, and provided the investigator with a four-day supply of medication all together, despite those medications having been processed daily on PharmaNet and despite the prescription for those medications directing that they be dispensed daily, and without reviewing PharmaNet or conducting an adequate consultation prior to dispensing, contrary to Standards 1(a) and (d), 2, 6, 7, and 9 of the Code of Ethics, section 11 and 12 of the Standards of Practice, section 25.92 of the HPA, and what was then section 21(1) and is now section 35(1) of the PODSA Bylaws,

      4. on two separate occasions, advised one of undercover investigators on how to have medications dispensed contrary to legislative standards, specifically how to get three identical prescriptions, all with the same date, dispensed and how to get dispensed medications that previously been processed on PharmaNet but not picked up, contrary to Standards 1, 6, 7, and 9 of the Code of Ethics,

      5. on multiple occasions, provided one of the undercover investigators with a seven-day supply of medications all together, despite the medications being processed daily on PharmaNet and despite the prescription directing that the medication be dispensed daily, and in doing so, failed to accurately record the dispensing of the medication on PharmaNet and conduct the required patient consultations, contrary to Standards 1(a) and (d), 2, 6, 7, and 9 of the Code of Ethics, sections 11 and 12 of the Standards of Practice, section 25.92 of the HPA, and what was then section 21(1) and is now 35(1) of the PODSA Bylaws,

      6. on multiple occasions, dispensed unauthorized quantities of methadone to one of the undercover investigators contrary to Standards 1(a) and (d), 2, 6, 7, and 9 of the Code of Ethics, sections 6(4), 9 and 9.1(1) of the Standards of Practice, section 25, 92 of the HPA, section 9 of PODSA, what was then section 4(5) and (6) and is now section 19(5) and (6) of the PODSA Bylaws, and Principle 4.1.6 of Professional Practice Policy #66, Policy Guide, Methadone Maintenance Treatment (2013), and contrary to previous consent agreements and undertakings to the CPBC.

    2. The Registrant operated or permitted the operation of a pharmacy for one day when not authorized under bylaw or by a pharmacy licence contrary to Standards 1(a) and (d), 2 and 6 of the Code of Ethics and sections 7(1), (2), and (3) of PODSA.
       
  6. Disposition:
    In the Consent Order under section 37.1 of the HPA, the Inquiry Committee ordered that Mr. Ali

    1. receive a written reprimand,

    2. sign and deliver to the CPBC a letter of undertaking,

    3. is suspended for 18 months (September 21, 2020 to March 21, 2022),

    4. must pay the CPBC a fine in the amount of $20,000,

    5. must not act as owner, manager or shareholder of a pharmacy for a period of 5 years commencing the date the suspension is complete,

    6. after the suspension is complete, upon return to active practice, must practice for a period of 3 months under the supervision of a pharmacist in good standing with the College, and

    7. must successfully complete the following course work at his own cost:
       
      1. Opioid Agonist Treatment Compliance and Management Program for Pharmacy – offered by BC Pharmacy Association;
         
      2. BC Community Pharmacy Manager Training Program – offered by the BC Pharmacy Association;
         
      3. the Therapeutics and Patient Dialogue Skills modules from the University of British Columbia’s Canadian Pharmacy Practice Program;
         
  7. Rationale:

    The Registrant repeatedly contravened sections of the HPA, PODSA Bylaws, Community Pharmacy Standards of Practice, and the Code of Ethics in his practice as a pharmacist, pharmacy manager, and director.  During the time of the undercover investigations, he appeared to have knowingly neglected his basic duties as a pharmacist, and knowingly committed or allowed actions that were unethical and could potentially endanger patient health. The totality of his conduct demonstrated an egregious breach of trust and undermines the integrity of the profession.

    After receiving notification of the undercover investigations, the Registrant took responsibility for his mistakes and did not seek to minimize the seriousness of his conduct. The Registrant did advise the CPBC that he provided cash incentives in order to compete with other pharmacies and also out of fear, as he was assaulted by a patient for refusing to pay incentives.  The Registrant agreed, however, that there was no excuse for his conduct.

    The Registrant’s contrition and cooperation with the CPBC in this proceeding were mitigating factors in this case but did not change the serious nature of his conduct.

    At the time of the undercover investigation, the Registrant had been a pharmacist in BC for 6 years. He knew, or ought to have known, that a pharmacist must perform the minimum standard of care with every patient, regardless of any systemic issues, competition from other pharmacies, or pressure from patients. The Registrant had agreed to be reprimanded and sanctioned for two previous complaints. That prior history and his pattern of repeated misconduct were the main aggravating factors in this case.

    The Registrant’s conduct in this instance, coupled with the breach of his previous undertakings, is considered significant professional misconduct as defined in s. 26 of the HPA, and justifies serious consequences. The Inquiry Committee therefore considered it appropriate, and the Registrant agreed, that the disposition for such conduct be one that serves as a strong deterrent and sends a clear message to both the profession and the public that the College cannot and will not tolerate this type of conduct under any circumstances.

Phu, Jenny (Sep 8, 2020)
  1. Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (the “College”) conducted an investigation into the practice of Jenny Phu (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183.

    The Inquiry Committee and the Registrant have agreed to resolve all matters arising from the investigation by way of a Consent Agreement under section 36(1) of the Health Professions Act.

  2. Effective date: September 8, 2020

  3. Name of registrant: Jenny Phu

  4. Location of Practice: Richmond, BC

  5. The College’s Investigation:

    Multiple registrants were involved in this matter.

    The College’s investigation found that between January 2012 and June 2018, over 20,000 false transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records at two pharmacies, where the Registrant had worked at both pharmacies as a pharmacist and as pharmacy manager at one of the pharmacies.

    These transactions were considered false because:

    • Schedule I (prescription) medications associated with these transactions had not been authorized or prescribed by the prescriber associated with each transaction;
    • Medications associated with these transactions, which included Schedule I, Over-The-Counter (“OTC) medications and vitamins, were not actually dispensed to the “patient” in each case;
    • Transactions were processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies, for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts; and
    • Transactions were processed not for the purpose of providing health care and were not processed with each patient’s voluntary consent.
       

    The College’s investigation also found that during the same time period, over 10,000 transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records for medications that were actually authorized but processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies when there was no clinical indication to do so. The medications for these transactions were not actually dispensed to the patient on a daily or weekly basis, making each patient’s PharmaNet records inaccurate and not current. These transactions were processed in this manner for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts.

    The “patients” whose PharmaNet records were affected were all either current or former employees of the two pharmacies, or family members of former employees of the two pharmacies. Reportedly, the owner of the two pharmacies had directed for transactions to be processed in the above manner in order to artificially inflate prescription counts at both pharmacies.

  6. The Registrant's involvement and acknowledgments:

    Regarding the Registrant’s involvement in this matter, the Inquiry Committee considered it substantiated, and the Registrant has acknowledged, that:

    1. She processed false transactions for Schedule I and OTC/vitamin medications on her own PharmaNet record and on the PharmaNet records of her colleagues;

    2. She backdated PharmaNet transactions, meaning that the transaction records were created on a date later than the date that appears on PharmaNet;

    3. She billed the false and inaccurate transactions described above to PharmaCare and/or third-party insurance plans, when she knew these to be false or misleading claims;

    4. She processed medications on PharmaNet for herself;

    5. She inappropriately used personal health information and created inaccurate PharmaNet records, placing herself and her colleagues at risk of harm, in case their PharmaNet records ever needed to be accessed for legitimate medical reasons;

    6. She failed to report to the College or to another person of authority regarding the improper practices occurring at the two pharmacies, even though she knew that these practices were improper; and

    7. As a pharmacy manager, she enabled the false transactions on patient PharmaNet records, prioritized meeting quotas and targets over patient safety and compliance with legislation and did not set or enforce policies and procedures in the pharmacy to ensure compliance with practice standards.

  7. Disposition:

    The Registrant entered into a Consent Agreement with the College’s Inquiry Committee, wherein the Registrant consented to the following terms (in part):

    1. To successfully complete and pass an ethics course for healthcare professionals within two years. If she fails to complete this within the specified time period, her registration will be suspended for a period of 60 days;

    2. To appear before the Inquiry Committee for a verbal reprimand;
       
    3. To have a letter of reprimand placed permanently on the College register;
       
    4. To not be a pharmacy manager and/or a preceptor for pharmacy students for a period of one year from September 8, 2020 to September 8, 2021;

    5. To pay a $3000.00 fine;

    6. To successfully pass the College’s Jurisprudence Exam; and

    7. To successfully complete and pass the “BC Community Pharmacy Manager Training Program” offered by the British Columbia Pharmacy Association.

  8. Rationale:

    The Registrant’s actions were considered serious contraventions of legislation involving pharmacy practice standards, the appropriate access, use and protection of personal health information and PharmaNet records, and her role as a pharmacy manager. Her misconduct placed herself and others at risk of harm. The Registrant also contravened standards of the Code of Ethics involving protecting and promoting the well-being of patients, benefitting society, committing to personal and professional integrity, participating in ethical business practices, and conflicts of interest.

    In determining an appropriate disposition for the Registrant, the Inquiry Committee considered the Registrant’s report of feeling pressured by her employer (the pharmacy owner) to commit these actions, and that she personally did not stand to gain financially from what occurred.

    The Inquiry Committee considered the terms of the Consent Agreement necessary to protect the public, as well as send a clear message of deterrence to the profession. Inappropriate access and use of personal health information compromises the public’s trust in the pharmacy profession as a whole. At all times, registrants must uphold legislative requirements and ethical obligations to appropriately access, use and protect personal health information.

Sobool, Dayton Cliff (Aug 31, 2020)
  1. Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (“CPBC”) conducted an investigation into a complaint (the “Complaint”) about the practice of Dayton Sobool (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(1) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183 (“HPA”). The CPBC issued a Citation on February 24, 2020.

    Further to a proposal for resolution from the Registrant, the Inquiry Committee made a Consent Order under section 37.1 of the HPA.

  2. Effective date: August 31, 2020

  3. Name of registrant: Dayton Cliff Sobool 

  4. Location of Practice: Ashcroft, BC

  5. Admissions and acknowledgements:

    The Registrant admitted and/or acknowledged the following:

    1. on 7 separate occasions between September 2, 2016 and February 14, 2017 the Registrant provided, dispensed or sold narcotics included in the controlled prescription program without first obtaining a valid written prescription contrary to Standards 1(d) and 7(d) of the HPA Bylaws Schedule A – Code of Ethics (the “Code of Ethics”), section 6(4) of the HPA Bylaws Schedule F, Part I – Community Pharmacy Standards of Practice (the “Standards of Practice”), what was then section 4(5)(a) and is now section 19(5)(a) and what was then section 4(6) and is now section 19(6) of the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act – Bylaws (the “PODSA Bylaws”), and sections 31 Narcotic Control Regulations, C.R.C., c. 1041; and
       
    2. on 3 separate occasions between September 14, 2016 and January 3, 2017 the Registrant dispensed medications that are included in Schedule I of the Drug Schedules Regulation, B.C. Reg. 9/98, without first obtaining a valid prescription or making a written record of a verbal authorization contrary to Standards 1(d) and 7(d) of the Code of Ethics, sections 6(4) and 6(7) of the Standards of Practice, and what was then section 4(5)(a) and is now section 19(5)(a) of the PODSA Bylaws.
       
  6. Disposition:

    In the Consent Order under section 37.1 of the HPA, the Inquiry Committee ordered that the Registrant:

    1. receive a written reprimand,

    2. sign and deliver to the College a letter of undertaking,
       
    3. be suspended for 4 weeks (August 31, 2020 to September 28, 2020),
       
    4. must pay to the CPBC:

      1. a fine of $1,000, and
      2. costs of $2,000,
         
    5. review the following legislation:

      1. Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act;
      2. Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act – Bylaws;
      3. Health Professions Act – Bylaws, Schedule F, Part I – Community Pharmacy Standards of Practice;
      4. Health Professions Act – Bylaws, Schedule A – Code of Ethics.
         
  7. Rationale:

    This was the second instance where the Registrant was found to have dispensed medication, including narcotics, without a written prescription. The Registrant previously provided an undertaking to the CPBC not to repeat the conduct and so these further violations were also in breach of that undertaking.

    The Inquiry Committee considered this prior history to be a significant aggravating factor in this case.

    The Registrant’s conduct in this instance, coupled with the breach of a previous undertaking that pertained to that conduct, is consider significant professional misconduct as defined in s.26 of the HPA and justifies a serious penalty. The Inquiry Committee therefore considered it appropriate that the disposition be one that serves as a strong deterrent and sends a clear message to both the profession and the public that the College does not tolerate this type of conduct.

Pharmacist Registrant 27 (Aug 27, 2020)

The Inquiry Committee, pursuant to section 32.2(4)(b)(ii) of the Health Professions Act, has reached an agreement with the pharmacist registrant to voluntarily suspend the registration as a pharmacist effective August 27, 2020. The agreement remains in effect until further notice. The Inquiry Committee considers the agreement necessary to protect the public. The pharmacist registrant's name has been withheld pursuant to section 39.3(4)(a) of the Health Professions Act.


February 11, 2020
(August 27, 2020 - REGISTRATION Suspended)

 

The Inquiry Committee has reinstated pharmacist registrant’s registration which had previously been suspended for an indefinite period on May 12, 2019. Pursuant to Section 32.2(4)(b)(i) of the Health Professions Act, the Inquiry Committee has reached an Agreement with the pharmacist registrant whereby the pharmacist registrant consented to terms including, but not limited to, the following:

  1. To comply with any and all recommendations and treatment prescribed or directed by medical professionals involved in the Registrant's care;
     
  2. To comply with any and all work plans and gradual return to work protocols as advised by the Registrant’s medical professionals and/or employers;
     
  3. To strictly adhere to the Registrant's routine medical monitoring program for the current 3 year period, and then sign an identical agreement for monitoring for an additional 2 years, for a total period of 5 years of monitoring;
     
  4. To not order, handle, prepare, dispense or destroy any narcotic, controlled or targeted substances the Registrant may have access to while being medically monitored;
     
  5. To inform the College in via e-mail of the Registrant’s places of employment as a pharmacist and report any changes to the location of their employment within 48 hours of such change;
     
  6. To inform all managers and employers with whom the Registrant gains employment of the limits and conditions on registration pursuant to the Agreement, if the pharmacy dispenses mood altering drugs;
     
  7. To ensure that all managers and employers with whom the Registrant gains employment submits a written statement to the College declaring their awareness of the limits and conditions on registration pursuant to the Agreement, if the pharmacy dispenses mood altering drugs.

May 12, 2019
(FEBRUARY 11, 2020 - REGISTRATION REINSTATED)

The Inquiry Committee, pursuant to section 32.2(4)(b)(ii) of the Health Professions Act, has reached an Agreement with the pharmacist registrant to voluntarily suspend the registration as a pharmacist effective May 12, 2019. The Agreement remains in effect until further notice. The Inquiry Committee considers the Agreement necessary to protect the public. The pharmacist registrant's name has been withheld pursuant to section 39.3(4)(a) of the Health Professions Act.


November 7, 2016

The Inquiry Committee has reinstated pharmacist registrant’s registration which had previously been suspended for an indefinite period on June 10, 2016. The pharmacist registrant’s name has been withheld pursuant to section 39.3(4) of the Health Professions Act


June 10, 2016
(NOVEMBER 7, 2016 – REGISTRATION REINSTATED)

The Inquiry Committee, pursuant to section 36 of the Health Professions Act, has reached an Agreement with the pharmacist registrant to voluntarily suspend the registration as a pharmacist effective June 10, 2016. The Agreement remains in effect until further notice. The Inquiry Committee considers the Agreement necessary to protect the public. The pharmacist registrant's name has been withheld pursuant to section 39.3(4) of the Health Professions Act.

Kim, Da Seul (Aug 24, 2020)
  1. Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (the “College”) conducted an investigation into the practice of Da Seul Kim (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183.

    The Inquiry Committee and the Registrant have agreed to resolve all matters arising from the investigation by way of a Consent Agreement under section 36(1) of the Health Health Professions Act.

  2. Effective date: August 24, 2020

  3. Name of registrant: Da Seul Kim

  4. Location of Practice: North Vancouver, BC

  5. The College’s Investigation:

    Multiple registrants were involved in this matter.

    The College’s investigation found that between January 2012 and June 2018, over 20,000 false transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records at two pharmacies, where the Registrant had worked at both pharmacies as a pharmacist and as pharmacy manager.

    These transactions were considered false because:

    • Schedule I (prescription) medications associated with these transactions had not been authorized or prescribed by the prescriber associated with each transaction;
    • Medications associated with these transactions, which included Schedule I, Over-The-Counter (“OTC) medications and vitamins, were not actually dispensed to the “patient” in each case;
    • Transactions were processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies, for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts; and
    • Transactions were processed not for the purpose of providing health care and were not processed with each patient’s voluntary consent.
       

    The College’s investigation also found that during the same time period, over 10,000 transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records for medications that were actually authorized but processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies when there was no clinical indication to do so. The medications for these transactions were not actually dispensed to the patient on a daily or weekly basis, making each patient’s PharmaNet records inaccurate and not current. These transactions were processed in this manner for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts.

    The “patients” whose PharmaNet records were affected were all either current or former employees of the two pharmacies, or family members of former employees of the two pharmacies. Reportedly, the owner of the two pharmacies had directed for transactions to be processed in the above manner in order to artificially inflate prescription counts at both pharmacies.

  6. The Registrant's involvement and acknowledgments:

    Regarding the Registrant’s involvement in this matter, the Inquiry Committee considered it substantiated, and the Registrant has acknowledged, that:

    1. She processed false transactions for Schedule I and OTC/vitamin medications on her own PharmaNet record and on the PharmaNet records of her family member and colleagues;

    2. She created false verbal prescriptions for the majority of these false transactions;

    3. She processed one-day supply transactions for Schedule I and OTC/vitamin medications on the PharmaNet records of her colleague’s family members, where these medications were not actually dispensed to the patient on a daily basis, making the patient’s PharmaNet records inaccurate and not current; were all processed as one-day supplies for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts; and were not clinically indicated to be dispensed on a daily basis;

    4. She backdated PharmaNet transactions, meaning that the transaction records were created on a date later than the date that appears on PharmaNet;

    5. She billed the false and inaccurate transactions described above to PharmaCare and/or third-party insurance plans, when she knew these to be false or misleading claims;

    6. She “prescribed” and processed medications on PharmaNet for herself and for her family member;
       
    7. She inappropriately used personal health information and created inaccurate PharmaNet records, placing herself, her family member, her colleagues, and her colleagues’ family members at risk of harm, in case their PharmaNet records ever needed to be accessed for legitimate medical reasons;

    8. She failed to report to the College or to another person of authority regarding the improper practices occurring at the two pharmacies, even though she knew that these practices were improper; and

    9. As a pharmacy manager, she enabled the false transactions on patient PharmaNet records, prioritized meeting quotas and targets over patient safety and compliance with legislation, and did not set or enforce policies and procedures in the two pharmacies to ensure compliance with practice standards.

  7. Disposition:

    The Registrant entered into a Consent Agreement with the College’s Inquiry Committee, wherein the Registrant consented to the following terms (in part):

    1. To successfully complete and pass an ethics course for healthcare professionals within two years. If she fails to complete this within the specified time period, her registration will be suspended for a period of 60 days;

    2. To appear before the Inquiry Committee for a verbal reprimand;
       
    3. To have a letter of reprimand placed permanently on the College register;
       
    4. To not be a pharmacy manager and/or a preceptor for pharmacy students for a period of one year from August 24, 2020 to August 24, 2021;

    5. To pay a $3000.00 fine;

    6. To successfully pass the College’s Jurisprudence Exam; and

    7. To successfully complete and pass the “BC Community Pharmacy Manager Training Program” offered by the British Columbia Pharmacy Association.

  8. Rationale:

    The Registrant’s actions were considered serious contraventions of legislation involving pharmacy practice standards, the appropriate access, use and protection of personal health information and PharmaNet records, and her role as a pharmacy manager. Her misconduct placed herself and others at risk of harm. The Registrant also contravened standards of the Code of Ethics involving protecting and promoting the well-being of patients, benefitting society, committing to personal and professional integrity, participating in ethical business practices, and conflicts of interest.

    In determining an appropriate disposition for the Registrant, the Inquiry Committee considered the Registrant’s report of feeling pressured by her employer (the pharmacy owner) to commit these actions, and that she personally did not stand to gain financially from what occurred.

    The Inquiry Committee considered the terms of the Consent Agreement necessary to protect the public, as well as send a clear message of deterrence to the profession. Inappropriate access and use of personal health information compromises the public’s trust in the pharmacy profession as a whole. At all times, registrants must uphold legislative requirements and ethical obligations to appropriately access, use and protect personal health information.

Roy, Laurent Pierre (Aug 24, 2020)
  1. Nature of Action: ​The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (“CPBC”) conducted an investigation into the practice of Laurent Roy (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183. The Inquiry Committee and the Registrant have agreed to resolve all matters arising from the investigation by way of a Consent Agreement under section 36(1) of the Health Professions Act.

  2. Effective date: August 24, 2020

  3. Name of registrant: Laurent Pierre Roy

  4. Location of Practice: Salmon Arm, BC

  5. Admissions and Acknowledgements:

    Between at least 2011 and 2018, the Registrant purchased pharmacy supplies, including prescription medications, from a hospital employee for cash. The hospital alleged the hospital employee diverted the supplies from the hospital.

    Evidence in the form of communication suggested the Registrant was aware of the diverted nature of the supplies he purchased, and that some of the cash he paid for the supplies to the hospital employee were diverted away from hospital accounts. The Registrant may have benefited financially by purchasing the supplies from the hospital employee and then reselling the supplies from his pharmacy.

  6. Disposition:

    The Registrant entered into a Consent Agreement with the Inquiry Committee, wherein the Registrant consented to terms that include (but are not limited to) the following:

    1. To suspend his registration as a pharmacist for a total of 365 days from August 24, 2020 to August 24, 2021;

    2. To not be pharmacy manager, director or officer of a pharmacy for a period of three (3) years from August 25, 2021 to August 24, 2024;
       
    3. To not be a preceptor or supervisor of pharmacy students or international pharmacy graduates for a period of three (3) years from August 25, 2021 to August 24, 2024;
       
    4. To complete and successfully pass an ethics course for healthcare professionals;

    5. To complete and successfully pass the CPBC’s Jurisprudence Exam;

    6. To have a letter of reprimand placed on CPBC’s register indefinitely; and

    7. To pay a fine of $25,000.

  7. Rationale:

    The Inquiry Committee considered that in this case, in the Registrant repeatedly made purchases from the hospital employee over a prolonged period. The Registrant was likely aware of the nature of the supplies he was purchasing. The Inquiry Committee determined that the Registrant’s decision to continue making purchases was likely based on financial gain, and this indicated a pattern of poor judgement. His actions were a serious contravention of standards in the Code of Ethics and compromised the public’s trust in the pharmacy profession.

    The Inquiry Committee therefore determined that the Registrant required serious remediation and deterrence regarding his conduct. The Inquiry Committee considered the terms of the Consent Agreement appropriate to protect the public, as well as send a clear message of deterrence to the profession.

Quon, Patrick (Aug 24, 2020)
  1. Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (the “College”) conducted an investigation into the practice of Patrick Quon (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183.

    The Inquiry Committee and the Registrant have agreed to resolve all matters arising from the investigation by way of a Consent Agreement under section 36(1) of the Health Professions Act.

  2. Effective date: August 24, 2020

  3. Name of registrant: Patrick Quon

  4. Location of Practice: Richmond, BC

  5. The College’s Investigation:

    Multiple registrants were involved in this matter.

    The College’s investigation found that between January 2012 and June 2018, over 20,000 false transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records at two pharmacies, where the Registrant had worked as a pharmacy manager at one of the pharmacies. These transactions were considered false because:

    • Schedule I (prescription) medications associated with these transactions had not been authorized or prescribed by the prescriber associated with each transaction;
    • Medications associated with these transactions, which included Schedule I, Over-The-Counter (“OTC) medications and vitamins, were not actually dispensed to the “patient” in each case;
    • Transactions were processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies, for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts; and
    • Transactions were processed not for the purpose of providing health care and were not processed with each patient’s voluntary consent.
       

    The College’s investigation also found that during the same time period, over 10,000 transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records for medications that were actually authorized but processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies when there was no clinical indication to do so. The medications for these transactions were not actually dispensed to the patient on a daily or weekly basis, making each patient’s PharmaNet records inaccurate and not current. These transactions were processed in this manner for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts.

    The “patients” whose PharmaNet records were affected were all either current or former employees of the two pharmacies, or family members of former employees of the two pharmacies. Reportedly, the owner of the two pharmacies had directed for transactions to be processed in the above manner in order to artificially inflate prescription counts at both pharmacies.

  6. The Registrant's involvement and acknowledgments:

    Regarding the Registrant’s involvement in this matter, the Inquiry Committee considered it substantiated, and the Registrant has acknowledged, that:

    1. He processed false transactions for Schedule I and OTC/vitamin medications on his own PharmaNet record and on the PharmaNet records of his colleagues;

    2. He processed one-day supply transactions for Schedule I and OTC/vitamin medications on the PharmaNet records of his family members, his colleagues, and his colleague’s family members, where these medications were not actually dispensed to the patient on a daily basis, making the patient’s PharmaNet records inaccurate and not current; were all processed as one-day supplies for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts; and were not clinically indicated to be dispensed on a daily basis;

    3. He backdated PharmaNet transactions, meaning that the transaction records were created on a date later than the date that appears on PharmaNet;

    4. He billed the false and inaccurate transactions described above to PharmaCare and/or third-party insurance plans, when she knew these to be false or misleading claims;

    5. He processed medications on PharmaNet for himself and for his family members;

    6. He inappropriately used personal health information and created inaccurate PharmaNet records, placing himself, his family members, his colleagues, and his colleagues’ family members at risk of harm, in case their PharmaNet records ever needed to be accessed for legitimate medical reasons;

    7. As a pharmacy manager, he enabled the false transactions on patient PharmaNet records, prioritized meeting quotas and targets over patient safety and compliance with legislation, and did not set or enforce policies and procedures in the pharmacy to ensure compliance with practice standards.

  7. Disposition:

    The Registrant entered into a Consent Agreement with the College’s Inquiry Committee, wherein the Registrant consented to the following terms (in part):

    1. To successfully complete and pass an ethics course for healthcare professionals within two years. If he fails to complete this within the specified time period, his registration will be suspended for a period of 60 days;

    2. To appear before the Inquiry Committee for a verbal reprimand;
       
    3. To have a letter of reprimand placed permanently on the College register;
       
    4. To not be a pharmacy manager and/or a preceptor for pharmacy students for a period of one year from August 24, 2020 to August 24, 2021;

    5. To pay a $3000.00 fine;

    6. To successfully pass the College’s Jurisprudence Exam; and

    7. To successfully complete and pass the “BC Community Pharmacy Manager Training Program” offered by the British Columbia Pharmacy Association.

  8. Rationale:

    The Registrant’s actions were considered serious contraventions of legislation involving pharmacy practice standards, the appropriate access, use and protection of personal health information and PharmaNet records, and his role as a pharmacy manager. His misconduct placed himself and others at risk of harm. The Registrant also contravened standards of the Code of Ethics involving protecting and promoting the well-being of patients, benefitting society, committing to personal and professional integrity, participating in ethical business practices, and conflicts of interest.

    In determining an appropriate disposition for the Registrant, the Inquiry Committee considered the Registrant’s report of feeling pressured by his employer (the pharmacy owner) to commit these actions, and that he personally did not stand to gain financially from what occurred.

    The Inquiry Committee considered the terms of the Consent Agreement necessary to protect the public, as well as send a clear message of deterrence to the profession. Inappropriate access and use of personal health information compromises the public’s trust in the pharmacy profession as a whole. At all times, registrants must uphold legislative requirements and ethical obligations to appropriately access, use and protect personal health information.

Shum, Gary Tse-Hong (Aug 23, 2020)
  1. Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (the “College”) conducted an investigation into the practice of Gary Tse-Hong Shum (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183.

    The Inquiry Committee and the Registrant have agreed to resolve all matters arising from the investigation by way of a Consent Agreement under section 36(1) of the Health Professions Act.

  2. Effective date: August 23, 2020

  3. Name of registrant: Gary Tse-Hong Shum

  4. Location of Practice: Vancouver, BC

  5. The College’s Investigation:

    Multiple registrants were involved in this matter.

    The College’s investigation found that between January 2012 and June 2018, over 20,000 false transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records at two pharmacies, where the Registrant had worked as a pharmacist at one of the pharmacies. These transactions were considered false because:

    • Schedule I (prescription) medications associated with these transactions had not been authorized or prescribed by the prescriber associated with each transaction;
    • Medications associated with these transactions, which included Schedule I, Over-The-Counter (“OTC) medications and vitamins, were not actually dispensed to the “patient” in each case;
    • Transactions were processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies, for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts; and
    • Transactions were processed not for the purpose of providing health care and were not processed with each patient’s voluntary consent.
       

    The College’s investigation also found that during the same time period, over 10,000 transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records for medications that were actually authorized but processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies when there was no clinical indication to do so. The medications for these transactions were not actually dispensed to the patient on a daily or weekly basis, making each patient’s PharmaNet records inaccurate and not current. These transactions were processed in this manner for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts.

    The “patients” whose PharmaNet records were affected were all either current or former employees of the two pharmacies, or family members of former employees of the two pharmacies. Reportedly, the owner of the two pharmacies had directed for transactions to be processed in the above manner in order to artificially inflate prescription counts at both pharmacies.

  6. The Registrant's involvement and acknowledgments:

    Regarding the Registrant’s involvement in this matter, the Inquiry Committee considered it substantiated, and the Registrant has acknowledged, that:

    1. He processed false transactions for Schedule I and OTC/vitamin medications on his own PharmaNet record and on the PharmaNet records of his colleagues;

    2. He processed one-day supply transactions for Schedule I and OTC/vitamin medications on the PharmaNet records of his colleague’s family members, where these medications were not actually dispensed to the patient on a daily basis, making the patient’s PharmaNet records inaccurate and not current; were all processed as one-day supplies for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts; and were not clinically indicated to be dispensed on a daily basis;

    3. He backdated PharmaNet transactions, meaning that the transaction records were created on a date later than the date that appears on PharmaNet;

    4. He billed the false and inaccurate transactions described above to PharmaCare and/or third-party insurance plans, when he knew these to be false or misleading claims;

    5. He processed medications on PharmaNet for himself;

    6. He inappropriately used personal health information and created inaccurate PharmaNet records, placing himself, his family members, his colleagues, and his colleagues’ family members at risk of harm, in case their PharmaNet records ever needed to be accessed for legitimate medical reasons; and

    7. He failed to report to the College or to another person of authority regarding the improper practices occurring at the pharmacy, even though he knew that these practices were improper.

  7. Disposition:

    The Registrant entered into a Consent Agreement with the College’s Inquiry Committee, wherein the Registrant consented to the following terms (in part):

    1. To successfully complete and pass an ethics course for healthcare professionals within two years. If he fails to complete this within the specified time period, his registration will be suspended for a period of 60 days;

    2. To appear before the Inquiry Committee for a verbal reprimand;
       
    3. To have a letter of reprimand placed permanently on the College register;
       
    4. To not be a pharmacy manager and/or a preceptor for pharmacy students for a period of 180 days from August 23, 2020 to February 19, 2021;

    5. To pay a $1000.00 fine;

    6. To successfully pass the College’s Jurisprudence Exam; and

    7. To successfully complete and pass the “BC Community Pharmacy Manager Training Program” offered by the British Columbia Pharmacy Association.

  8. Rationale:

    The Registrant’s actions were considered serious contraventions of legislation involving pharmacy practice standards and the appropriate access, use and protection of personal health information and PharmaNet records. His misconduct placed himself and others at risk of harm. The Registrant also contravened standards of the Code of Ethics involving protecting and promoting the well-being of patients, benefitting society, committing to personal and professional integrity, participating in ethical business practices, and conflicts of interest.

    In determining an appropriate disposition for the Registrant, the Inquiry Committee considered the Registrant’s report of feeling pressured by his employer (the pharmacy owner) to commit these actions, and that he personally did not stand to gain financially from what occurred.

    The Inquiry Committee considered the terms of the Consent Agreement necessary to protect the public, as well as send a clear message of deterrence to the profession. Inappropriate access and use of personal health information compromises the public’s trust in the pharmacy profession as a whole. At all times, registrants must uphold legislative requirements and ethical obligations to appropriately access, use and protect personal health information.

Nwaogwugwu, Chidi Nweze (Aug 21, 2020)
  1. Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (the “College”) conducted an investigation into the practice of Chidi Nweze Nwaogwugwu (the “Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183.

    The Inquiry Committee and the Registrant have agreed to resolve all matters arising from the investigation by way of a Consent Agreement under section 36(1) of the Health Professions Act.

  2. Effective date: August 21, 2020

  3. Name of registrant: Chidi Nweze Nwaogwugwu

  4. Location of Practice: North Vancouver, BC

  5. The College’s Investigation:

    Multiple registrants were involved in this matter.

    The College’s investigation found that between January 2012 and June 2018, over 20,000 false transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records at two pharmacies, where the Registrant had worked as a pharmacist at one of the pharmacies. These transactions were considered false because:

    • Schedule I (prescription) medications associated with these transactions had not been authorized or prescribed by the prescriber associated with each transaction;
    • Medications associated with these transactions, which included Schedule I, Over-The-Counter (“OTC) medications and vitamins, were not actually dispensed to the “patient” in each case;
    • Transactions were processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies, for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts; and
    • Transactions were processed not for the purpose of providing health care and were not processed with each patient’s voluntary consent.
       

    The College’s investigation also found that during the same time period, over 10,000 transactions were processed on patient PharmaNet records for medications that were actually authorized but processed as one-day supplies or seven-day supplies when there was no clinical indication to do so. The medications for these transactions were not actually dispensed to the patient on a daily or weekly basis, making each patient’s PharmaNet records inaccurate and not current. These transactions were processed in this manner for the sole purpose of artificially inflating prescription counts.

    The “patients” whose PharmaNet records were affected were all either current or former employees of the two pharmacies, or family members of former employees of the two pharmacies. Reportedly, the owner of the two pharmacies had directed for transactions to be processed in the above manner in order to artificially inflate prescription counts at both pharmacies.

  6. The Registrant's involvement and acknowledgments:

    Regarding the Registrant’s involvement in this matter, the Inquiry Committee considered it substantiated, and the Registrant has acknowledged, that:

    1. On three separate occasions, on the PharmaNet records of three of his colleagues, his name was associated with false PharmaNet transactions for vitamins;

    2. He backdated the majority of these PharmaNet transactions, meaning that the transaction records were created on a date later than the date that appears on PharmaNet;

    3. He inappropriately used personal health information and created inaccurate PharmaNet records, placing his colleagues at risk of harm, in case their PharmaNet records ever needed to be accessed for legitimate medical reasons; and

    4. He failed to report to the College or to another person of authority regarding the improper practices occurring at the pharmacy, even though he knew that these practices were improper.

  7. Disposition:

    The Registrant entered into a Consent Agreement with the College’s Inquiry Committee, wherein the Registrant consented to the following terms (in part):

    1. To successfully complete and pass an ethics course for healthcare professionals within two years. If he fails to complete this within the specified time period, his registration will be suspended for a period of 60 days;

    2. To appear before the Inquiry Committee for a verbal reprimand;
       
    3. To have a letter of reprimand placed permanently on the College register;
       
    4. To not be a pharmacy manager and/or a preceptor for pharmacy students for a period of 180 days from August 21, 2020 to February 17, 2021;

    5. To pay a $1000.00 fine;

    6. To successfully pass the College’s Jurisprudence Exam; and

    7. To successfully complete and pass the “BC Community Pharmacy Manager Training Program” offered by the British Columbia Pharmacy Association.

  8. Rationale:

    The Registrant’s actions were considered serious contraventions of legislation involving pharmacy practice standards and the appropriate access, use and protection of personal health information and PharmaNet records. His misconduct placed others at risk of harm. The Registrant also contravened standards of the Code of Ethics involving protecting and promoting the well-being of patients, benefitting society, committing to personal and professional integrity, and participating in ethical business practices.

    In determining an appropriate disposition for the Registrant, the Inquiry Committee considered the Registrant’s report of feeling pressured by his employer (the pharmacy owner) to commit these actions, and that he personally did not stand to gain financially from what occurred.

    The Inquiry Committee considered the terms of the Consent Agreement necessary to protect the public, as well as send a clear message of deterrence to the profession. Inappropriate access and use of personal health information compromises the public’s trust in the pharmacy profession as a whole. At all times, registrants must uphold legislative requirements and ethical obligations to appropriately access, use and protect personal health information.

Pages