THUNDER BAY -- Ontario's Health Professions Appeal and Review Board has upheld a decision by the College of Pharmacists to take no action against a Thunder Bay pharmacist accused of breaching confidentiality.
The case arose from a November, 2015 incident when the pharmacist contacted a man's family doctor to request authorization for a repeat prescription for a painkiller.
The doctor had been concerned at that time about her patient's missed appointments and refusal to give a urine sample at her office, so she phoned the pharmacist to discuss the request.
According to a transcript of the appeal board's decision, during the conversation the doctor mentioned a failed urine test "and queried what that meant, to which the (pharmacist) suggested that the (patient) might be selling his medication."
The doctor then sent a note to the pharmacy to stop all the man's narcotics and controlled substances, and subsequently terminated the doctor-patient relationship.
In a complaint to the College of Pharmacists, the man alleged that the pharmacist had made "serious and baseless allegations" and had relied on "gossip by unidentified parties" to do so.
In his response, the pharmacist said the family doctor had indicated that the patient's tests "came back negative" for his medication and that she wondered "how that could be." The pharmacist said his response was that the man "could be selling."
The pharmacist added that it was his professional responsibility to voice his concerns to physicians regarding patients and their medications. He also noted that the doctor had said she had "a few red flags" regarding the patient. He didn't know what those were, he said, but there had also been a number of red flags raised about the man's medications at the pharmacy level.
The college's Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee concluded that there can be no breach of confidentiality regarding a discussion kept between caregivers within the circle of care, and that no information was made public.
It further ruled that it can only address an issue where a pharmacist has provided health information inappropriately, which it said did not occur in this instance.
At a hearing by the Appeal and Review Board conducted earlier this year, the patient argued that the pharmacist's action was "gossip under the guise of raising concerns."
In its finding released last week, the board said the original decision on the complaint was reasonable, and that the matter was, in fact, an issue between the patient and his doctor.
According to information provided by the doctor, it said, there were other factors explaining why she terminated the relationship, and it was not based solely on input from the pharmacist.
