Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2017

Jane Powell

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2017-0310, written 30 Oct 2017. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report30 Oct 2017
Reference2017-0310
DeceasedJane Powell
CoronerLisa Hashmi
Coroner areaManchester North
CategoryOther related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

Text recovered by OCR from a scanned PDF. OCR is imperfect: check anything you rely on against the source PDF. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1)

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

THIS REPORT iS BEING SENT TO: |
4. Home Office, London
2. Department of Health, London

tne

CORONER

tam Ms L Hashmi, HM Area Coroner for the Coroner area of Manchester North.

CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS

{ make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroner's and Justice Act 2009 and Regulations 28
and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013.

INVESTIGATION and INQUEST

On the 12"" December 2016 | commenced an investigation into the death of Jane Allison Powell. My
investigation was concluded by way of an inquest hearing that commenced on the 20" October
2017, concluding on the 27" October 2017.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEATH:

Ms Powell was a qualified Pharmacist by profession although at the time of her death she was no longer
licensed to practise.

Against a backdrop of enduring mental illness (more likely than not due to a borderline emotionally unstable
personality disorder and insecure attachment, rather than the historic diagnosis of bi-polar affective disorder),
a concern for the deceased’s welfare was raised by a neighbour on the 6th December 2016.

Police attended her home address and forced entry whereupon she was found deceased in the living room
area of the property. The deceased had last been seen alive between the 25th and 28th November 2016.

A linear mark to the deceased's neck was noted. A forensic post mortem was conducted and a fracture to
the larynx identified. Both the mark and the fracture were in keeping with a recent attempt to self-ligature but
were not causative of death. Toxicological analysis identified both prescribed and over the counter
medication, almost all of which potentially carried sedative effect. Furthermore, the deceased had been
purchasing large amounts of additional medication over the internet. Despite post-mortem changes and
having taken into consideration post mortem redistribution, the thrust of the evidence supported a finding of
multiple drug toxicity as the probable cause of death.

There was insufficient evidence to conclude, to the required legal standard, that the deceased had intended
to take her own life.

CORONER'S CONCERNS

During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is
a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to
report to you.

9

| The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows:-

4. The evidence in this case demonstrated how easy it is for individuals to obtain large arnounts of
medication (including those normally deerned to be ‘prescription only’ drugs) over the internet.
Whilst this problem has already been recognised by the pharmaceutical profession and its
regulatory body, it is unclear what action has been/is being taken in order to address the situation.

My concern is that, if left, there is a significant risk of future deaths.

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and | believe each of you respectively
have the power to take such action.

YOUR RESPONSE

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely the 27"
December 2017. |, the Coroner, may extend the period.

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for
action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed.

COPIES and PUBLICATION
[have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons namely:-

- The deceased’s family

- Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust

- Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
- General Pharmaceutical Council

1am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response.

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary from. He may send a
copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest. You may make
representations to me the coroner at the time of your response, about the release or the publication of your
response by the Chief Coroner.

Date: 30" October 2017 Signed: a
=

Responses

1 response published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.

Response from Department of Health (PDF)
4 1 JAN 2018
FromtheLordO’Shaughnessy
Parliamentary UnderSecretaryofStateforHealth (Lords)
Department
39 Victoria Street
of Health
London
Your Ref: 61026 SWIH OEU
020 72104850
PFD-1 105558
Ms Lisa Jeanette Hashmi 06 JAN2018
HM Area Coroner, Manchester North
HM Coroner’s Court
The Phoenix Centre
L/Cpl Stephen Shaw MC Way
Heywood OL1O 1LR
Thank you for your Report dated 30 October to the Department ofHealth about the
death ofMs Jane Allison Powell. I am responding as Minister with responsibility for
medicines regulation and I apologise for the slight delay in doing so.
I was very saddened to read ofthe circumstances surrounding Ms Powell’s death.
Please pass my condolences to her family and loved ones. I appreciate this must be a
very difficult time for them.
You ask for clarity on what action has been, or is being, taken to address the ease
with which individuals can obtain large amounts ofmedication (including
‘prescription only’) over the internet.
In preparation ofthis response, my officials have liaised with the Medicines and
Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the General Pharmaceutical
Council (GPhC).
It might be helpful ifI first provide some background to the legal controls on the retail
sale, supply and advertisement ofmedicinal products in the UK.
Under medicines legislation, it is unlawful for medicinal products for human use to be
marketed, manufactured, imported from a third country, distributed and sold or supplied
in the UK except in accordance with the appropriate licences or exemptions. The UK has
three legal classes of authorised medicines:
• General sale list medicines are suitable for sale and normal use without supervision
or advice from a pharmacist or doctor;
• Pharmacy (P) medicines can only be obtained from a pharmacy and are sold or
supplied under the supervision of a pharmacist; and
• Prescription only medicines (POM) must be prescribed by an authorised healthcare
professional, for example a doctor, dentist, or independent prescriber.
Doctors may also supply medicines direct to patients for example, where they
—
personally administer a medicine such as a vaccine, or where they are able under specific
NHS arrangements to supply prescribed medicines to their patients as part ofan NHS
dispensing service
A UK registered pharmacy may have a presence on the internet; however, the
requirements oflegislation apply equally to both UK internet pharmacies and bricks-and-
mortar premises. A POM cannot be advertised directly to the public.
These legal controls apply equally to medicines for human use sold or supplied via the
internet or e-mail transactions. Some POMs are ‘Controlled drugs’ (such as
benzodiazepines) and their availability to patients can be subject to additional control
under the Misuse ofDrugs Act 1971, which is administered by the Home Office.
These restrictions do not apply to countries outside UKjurisdiction where medicines
may be classified and regulated differently. For example, in the US and other
countries some medicines that would be POMs in the UK are available without
prescription.
Medicines legislation does not prohibit the remote prescribing ofPOMs by a
qualified prescriber. However, prescriptions must meet the usual requirements set out
in medicines legislation.
Additionally, there are no formal restrictions on an individual importing medicines
into the UK provided they are strictly for use by that person or a member oftheir
immediate family.
The GPhC operates the Internet Pharmacy Logo, which helps members ofthe public
identify ifa website is being operated by a legitimate pharmacy in the UK.
In addition, under provisions in the European Falsified Medicines Directive (FMD),
Member States have been required to introduce national arrangements to register
suppliers ofmedicines at a distance. This has involved the establishment ofa
national website and the adoption ofa common EU logo. All websites supplying
medicines at a distance are required to display the EU logo and provide a hyperlink to
Department
of Health
the national website ofthe Member State in which the person offering to sell
medicines at a distance is established. These provisions took effect across the EU on
1 July 2015 and the MHRA is responsible for UK registrations.
The UK’s registration scheme for the online retail selling of a medicine is set out in
the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.
Other provisions in FMD relating to sales ofmedicines at a distance require all EU
Member States to make non-prescription medicines available online some Member
—
States allow POMs to be supplied electronically.
In terms ofguidance, the GPhC has produced “Guidance for registered pharmacies
providing pharmacy services at a distance including on the internet”. The General
Medical Council has issued guidance to doctors on good practice concerning
prescribing where they are not in face-to-face contact with the patient.
The MHRA has serious concerns about the availability ofmedicines being offered
via the internet. Medicines purchased from websites, particularly websites based
overseas, cannot be guaranteed to meet set standards ofquality, safety and efficacy
and the MHRA advises patients not to purchase medicines in this way.
The MHRA’s advice is issued with a view to protecting patient health; as you will be
aware, there have been cases in the UK where individuals have purchased medicines
online that have led to severe adverse reactions and death. Consequently, the MHRA
is working to ensure that there is proper guidance to support the safe purchase of
medicines over the internet, which it hopes will reconcile the increasing trend
towards electronic commerce, including the growth oflegitimate pharmacies trading
online, with the protection ofindividual patient safety and public health.
The MHRA is taking a range of action in this area. It routinely monitors medicines
being offered for sale on the internet and enforcement action can be taken
immediately against wrong-doing based in the UK. The MHRA investigates reports
ofillegal activity taking place on a website and, where appropriate, takes
enforcement action against suppliers who operate outside the legal requirements.
Considerable illegal activity takes place outside ofUKjurisdiction and websites
identified overseas are referred to the relevant country for appropriate action.
However, many set up their operations from countries where there is little, or no,
regulatory control. The MHRA therefore works closely with the EU and other
international regulatory authorities to ensure that, wherever possible, offending
websites are amended to reflect the law.
The MHRA, working with the internet service industry and other stakeholders, has
closed thousands ofwebsites, including websites based overseas, and brought into
compliance hundreds more.
In addition, the MHRA has investigated cases where POMs have been supplied to
members ofthe public from websites without a prescription and the involvement ofa
qualified healthcare professional. A number ofindividuals have been successfully
prosecuted by the MHRA for selling medicines illegally over the internet.
An example ofinternational collaboration to tackle the illegal online supply of
medicines is demonstrated by Operation Pangea.
This international initiative to target illegal internet trade in pharmaceutical products
was instigated by the MHRA in April 2006. It started as the UK Internet Day of
Action and has grown annually into an International Week ofAction. It is the largest
internet-based enforcement action ofits kind to date. It is coordinated by
INTERPOL and carried out with the assistance ofpolice, the World Customs
Organisation, and law enforcement agencies/drug regulatory agencies across the
world.
The latest Operation Pangea (Pangea X) was carried out recently and resulted in
more than 1.3 million units ofmedicines and devices seized with an estimated value
ofjust over £4 million.
In terms ofraising awareness among the public and healthcare professionals, in
August 2016, the MHRA launched the FakeMeds campaign, aimed at reducing online
purchases offalsified, unlicensed and counterfeit medicines and medical devices.
Channels used to promote the campaign include broadcast and print media, the
gov.uk website and social media, as well as relevant partnership networks. The
success ofthe campaign is being assessed through awareness of, and consumer
behaviour towards, online purchasing offalsified products ultimately leading to
reduced negative impact on public health.
With regard to the sad death ofMs Powell, I am advised that from the information
provided in your Report, it is not possible to determine ifMs Powell obtained
medicines online legitimately, or from a website operating illegally. The MHRA has
requested information from Greater Manchester Police on the evidence held in this
case relating to the purchase and supply ofmedicines from websites and will
investigate further once it has received those details.
Department
of Health
I hope this reply is helpful. Thank you for bringing the circumstances ofMs Powell’s
death to my attention.
JAMES O’SHA

Related reports

Other reports by Lisa Hashmi

See all →

More reports categorised “Other related deaths”

See all →

Track Lisa Hashmi

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Lisa Hashmi, and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.