Manchester vet Dr Anca Bucur has received a two-month suspension from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) for writing a prescription of tramadol for a dog – which was not hers – with the intention “for human rather than animal use”, hearing documents revealed.
On March 19-21, the RCVS disciplinary committee heard that she “accessed the clinical record of a dog named Murphy” belonging to a client and “added details” to prescribe prescription-only medicine (POM) tramadol for her father.
Read more: LloydsDirect pharmacist suspended for attempting to smuggle tramadol from warehouse
It alleged that she “printed the prescription so that it could be presented at a pharmacy” and then “deleted all reference to it from Murphy’s clinical record on the practice management system”.
The committee accepted that Bucur “had no previous complaints or adverse matters in her career prior to this incident” and offered her “fulsome and genuine apology”, according to a sanction decision document.
But it stressed that her conduct “had given rise to a risk of injury, since she had not been professionally qualified or sufficiently informed to issue a prescription for tramadol to her father”.
“Fraudulent” prescription
While working at Manchester’s Atherton Veterinary Centre (AVC) in April last year, Bucur accessed Murphy’s record and added details of a tramadol prescription, “including the strength (50mg), the number of tablets (60), the dose (two tablets, twice daily)...[and] that the prescription was valid for one repeat after the initial dispensing”.
“[Bucur] had not seen Murphy, who did not require tramadol”, the misconduct decision document said, adding that she “intended the created prescription for human rather than animal use”.
After she allegedly “deleted all reference” to it from Murphy’s clinical records, she “stamped the prescription with AVC’s official practice stamp and signed it as the prescribing veterinary surgeon”, the committee heard.
Read more: ‘Cannabliss’ pharmacist pair sanctioned for lack of ‘adequate safeguards’
“It was further alleged that the prescription had been taken to Liverpool and presented at a pharmacy by the respondent’s partner” three days after it was written, the document said.
But when presented at a pharmacy counter, “the pharmacist became suspicious because [Bucur’s] partner appeared to be in a rush and had given a different name of a dog to that which appeared on the prescription”, it added.
Read more: ‘Criminal’ pharmacist pair struck off for Class C drug supply
The committee heard that “the pharmacist declined to dispense the tramadol and retained the prescription” and later contacted AVC and “forwarded a copy of the prescription”.
When the clinical director checked Murphy’s clinical records, he “found no reference” to the prescription and informed the pharmacy “not to dispense it and contact the police if appropriate” as “the prescription appeared fraudulent”.
“Acted recklessly”
After being contacted by AVC, Bucur reportedly told the practice’s clinical director that “she had written the prescription for tramadol for her father...[as he] had quite severe back pain and at times could barely walk”.
She explained to the committee that “she had issued a false prescription under the name of a client she had randomly taken from the practice management system for use by her father when he had come to the UK” for a visit.
“[She] had hoped that it would not be necessary to use the prescription but could see he was in pain during a trip to Liverpool, leading to a third party attempting to redeem said prescription,” Bucur said.
Read more: Pharmacist warned after drugs flogged via ‘unregistered brokers’
He had “refused to seek appropriate treatment from a doctor after suffering side effects” from previous medication but had “benefitted from taking his wife’s tramadol”, she added.
The RCVS accepted that “the facts found proved related to a single incident of the issuing and attempted use of a prescription” and took into account that Bucur “had made early, open and frank admissions to her conduct”.
Read more: Pharmacist removed for making indecent images of children
It also said that she had demonstrated “full insight” and that there is “no significant risk” of her repeating her behaviour”.
But it stressed that she “had acted recklessly with regard to the potential effects of a controlled, addictive drug, in the absence of proper professional qualification or full clinical information about her father’s medical history”.
And it added that “there was an abuse of [her] professional position as a registered veterinary surgeon” and that her conduct was aggravated by the “involvement of other persons in her misconduct, namely her partner”.
“Disgraceful conduct”
The committee found that “it was clear...[Bucur] had been aware that what she had done was wrong”, adding that she had “acted dishonestly” and had “attempted concealment”.
It argued that the profession had been “brought into disrepute” by her actions and that “public confidence in the profession had been undermined”, in part caused by “a breach of client confidentiality in the use of client details”.
Read more: Target-focused ‘transactional’ online pharmacist suspended after inadequate online consultations
The RCVS found that Bucur was “guilty of disgraceful conduct in a professional respect” but noted that her misconduct fell “short of being fundamentally incompatible with registration”.
It concluded that a suspension for two months was the “appropriate and proportionate sanction” in this case.
Read the misconduct and sanction determinations in full.
