Complaints Outcomes

Search

Search Results

Search Again
Petterson, Ian Douglas (Apr 27, 2021)
  1. Nature of Action: The Inquiry Committee of the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia (“CPBC”) conducted an investigation into the practice of Ian Petterson (the “Former Registrant”), pursuant to section 33(4) of the Health Professions Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 183. The Inquiry Committee and the Former 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: April 27, 2021

  3. Name of registrant: Ian Douglas Petterson

  4. Location of Practice: N/A

  5. Admissions and acknowledgements:

    Between at least 2011 and 2018, the Former Registrant diverted pharmacy supplies, including prescription medications, from a hospital pharmacy. The Former Registrant sold the diverted supplies to a community pharmacist in exchange for cash payments and did not deposit the funds obtained from sales into hospital accounts.

    Evidence in the form of emails and software reports appeared to indicate the Former Registrant transferred prescription medications to the community pharmacy without properly recording the transactions.

    Evidence in the form of emails and text messages appeared to indicate the Former Registrant circumvented hospital processes to divert the supplies from the hospital pharmacy. The evidence appeared to indicate the Former Registrant took steps to conceal his actions. The Former Registrant is likely to have benefited financially and professionally from the diversion and sale of the hospital supplies.

  1. Disposition:

    The Former Registrant entered into a Consent Agreement with the Inquiry Committee, wherein the Former 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 to commence from the date his registration is reinstated to Full Pharmacist;

    2. To not be pharmacy manager, director or officer of a pharmacy for a period of three (3) years following the completion of his suspension;

    3. To not be a preceptor or supervisor of pharmacy students or international pharmacy graduates for a period of three (3) years following the completion of his suspension;

    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; 

    7. To appear before the Inquiry Committee for a verbal reprimand; and

    8. To pay a fine of $35,000.

  2. Rationale:

    The Inquiry Committee considered that in this case, the evidence indicated the Former Registrant repeatedly diverted hospital pharmacy supplies over a prolonged period of time and sold them for cash to a community pharmacist. The Inquiry Committee identified that the hospital had policies and procedures in place to prevent theft and diversion, and that the Former Registrant circumvented these processes by using his title and status within the hospital.

    The Inquiry Committee determined that the Former Registrant took steps to conceal his conduct, and in doing so, repeatedly broke the trust placed in him by his peers and colleagues. The Inquiry Committee noted that the Former Registrant’s pattern of conduct appeared deliberate and intentional. Further, the Inquiry Committee noted the Former Registrant was employed by a publicly funded institution at the time of the incidents, and therefore the Former Registrant’s actions were a violation of the trust placed in him by society as a whole.

    The Inquiry Committee concluded the Former Registrant’s actions were a serious contravention of standards in the Code of Ethics as well as the Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act. The Inquiry Committee concluded the Former Registrant’s actions compromised the public’s trust in the pharmacy profession. The Inquiry Committee therefore determined that the Former 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.