A director of an Auckland pharmacy is no longer practising after a mistake in checking a script prompted him to deliberately cover up his error by forging a new script and blaming a colleague for his blunder.
Feras Dawood was the managing director of Unichem Waiuku Medical Pharmacy when a series of decisions, beginning in May 2019, led to the cancellation of his registration.
The Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal (HPDT) made no orders for name suppression in a decision released last week, detailing Dawood’s conduct after he counter-signed a script for incorrect medication prescribed to a new patient.
The mistake happened on May 9 2019 when a pharmacy technician, (Ms C) incorrectly dispensed anticoagulants instead of antibiotics to the new patient, (Ms B). Dawood checked the script but failed to see the error and signed it anyway.
The patient was supposed to have the medication Rifaximin dispensed but instead had Rivaroxaban 20mg dispensed.
Ms B collected her script on May 16 but became increasingly unwell and eight days later began vomiting blood and passed “pitch black bowel motions”.
An ambulance attended and she was transferred to Middlemore Hospital where she remained for five days following the reaction to the medicine.
When Dawood realised his mistake, he disposed of the original script, created a new one and signed it by another colleague (Ms A) to cover up his mistake.
The tribunal described Dawood’s deceit as “deliberate, calculated, and sustained”.
“Mr Dawood made a deliberate decision to cover-up his involvement in the dispensing error, and then to blame a junior pharmacist in his employment for his error. He destroyed original documents, created false documents, forged the pharmacy technician’s and Ms A’s initials onto the false documents, submitted a false report to the Pharmacy Defence Association, repeatedly told Ms A the error was her fault, and threatened to report her to the Pharmacy Council when she refused to take responsibility for it, and told another staff member Ms A was responsible but would not accept this.”
Dawood was found guilty of professional misconduct and had his registration cancelled. He was fined $5000 and ordered to pay costs of $10,500.
It was not the first time Dawood’s conduct had been in the spotlight. He had been working under supervision for previous dispensing errors.
In 2013 Dawood wilfully obstructed, hindered and deceived the Medicines Control adviser by claiming he had signed and initialled each entry in the Controlled Drugs Register and dispensed prescription forms when, in fact, the initials and signatures had been entered by the technician. He was therefore required to work under supervision – in 2019 Ms A was his supervising pharmacist.
The matter was first investigated by the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) and subsequently referred to the Director of Proceedings (a decision maker who is independent of HDC) who decided to lay a charge with the tribunal.
The decision by the tribunal was made on 6 May last year but only released publically last week.
Dawood can re-apply for registration in 2025
Michael Pead, Chief Executive of the Pharmacy Council told 1News, "where a case involves a significant failure by a practitioner together with a lack of insight, the HPDT often considers cancellation is appropriate.
"The HPDT decided to cancel Mr Dawood’s registration because of the significant lengths and degree of dishonesty Mr Dawood engaged in and because the HPDT could not expect the profession or public to feel protected or reassured by a further attempt at rehabilitation."
He said the HPDT ordered that Mr Dawood may not apply for re-registration for three years from the date of its decision. Three years from the date of the HPDT’s decision is 6 May 2025. It also ordered that Mr Dawood must complete, to the satisfaction of the Council, further education in ethics and professional responsibilities as directed and approved by the Council.
"Mr Dawood will also have to undertake with the Council that he will comply with all conditions as are imposed by the Council on his future practice as a pharmacist.
"The HPDT did not bar Mr Dawood from re-applying for registration. When a practitioner applies for re-registration, the Council must consider the requirements of sections 15 – 19 of the Act. This includes ensuring that the practitioner is fit for registration, has the required qualifications and is competent to practice. It also must consider whether any orders from the HPDT have been satisfied."
SHARE ME