National propranolol shortage

​​​This Freedom of Information response is subject to an appeal with the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner.

Once published, a link to the Commissioner’s Decision Notice will be added to this page.​

Request 771899440​

Please provide the following information:​​

A. Copies of any communications, alerts, circulars or bulletins issued between 1 November 2025 and 6 December 2025 that relate to the national shortage of propranolol 80 mg or 160 mg modified release capsules, including any reference to the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care medicine supply notification about these products..

- For each such communication, the date on which it was sent, the department or team that sent it, and the categories of recipients, for example all community pharmacies, all GP practices or other specified groups.

B. Any internal guidance, protocol, briefing note, action plan or meeting minutes created between 1 November 2025 and 6 December 2025 that discuss how this propranolol modified release shortage should be managed in Jersey primary care, including any decisions about contacting patients, switching patients to alternative preparations or using GP clinical systems to identify affected patients.

C. Any document or record that sets out the general process followed when a national medicine supply notification is issued in the United Kingdom, including how and when information is passed on to Jersey GP practices and community pharmacies.​

Response

A​​​​​​​

Information in scope of this request has been prepared for disclosure. Keyword searches of Health and Care Jersey’s (HCJ’s) email system were performed for the period requested. Relevant staff, including the Chief Pharmacist, Associate Chief Pharmacist – Medicines Optimisation, and the Lead Clinical Pharmacist were in scope of the searches.

Information in scope of this request has been prepared for disclosure. Duplicate emails and attachments have been removed, as have attachments which do not meet the request criteria. Documents have been redacted in consideration of Freedom of Information legislation; redactions have been colour coded for ease of reference:

• redactions have been applied to the personal information of individuals in consideration of Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. Redactions based on this exemption are shown in pale yellow
• information that is outside of the scope of this request has been redacted in grey​

Optimised propranolol shortage communications pack - redacted

‘Sent dates’ are visible in any email correspondence identified, and where staff members’ roles are detailed in their email signature these are included in the disclosure. Those communications identified which were initiated by HCJ staff in this timeframe were sent internally to named colleagues.

The request to provide supplementary details, such as the categories of recipients for each communication, would constitute the creation of a new dataset; a Scheduled Public Authority is not required to create new records or datasets in order to respond to Freedom of Information requests.

B

There has been no discussion in HCJ Pharmacy regarding management in Primary Care. GP prescriptions for propranolol would be fulfilled by community pharmacies, and not dispensed from HCJ Pharmacy.

C

The existing Standard Operating Procedure for the management of medicine shortages in HCJ is attached. Personal details have been redacted in yellow in consideration of Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. The document is due for review.

Managing Medicines Shortages Standard operating Procedure - redacted​

The processes for managing shortages are robust with a weekly meeting held to review stock shortages chaired by a senior pharmacist. 

Article applied

Article 25 Personal information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.

_______________________________________________________________________

Internal review request

The Freedom of Information (FOI) request seeking information on medication shortages, with a focus on the national propranolol shortage, was received by Health and Care Jersey (HCJ) on 08 December 2025. 

As the response to the request was taking more time than the initial 20 working day period and extensions to agreed deadlines had been applied, the applicant contacted the Central Information Governance Office, the administrative function for the handling of Freedom of Information requests, on 23 February 2026 to request qualification of timelines and to explore if a partial or rolling disclosure was possible. In this email, the applicant advised that if the full FOI response was not provided by 26 February 2026 an Internal Review request would be submitted. 

The Central Information Governance Office contacted HCJ on 23 February 2026 to advise of the applicant’s request and comments, and noted that the timeline and standard processes had been confirmed with the applicant.

The FOI response was provided to the applicant on 27 February 2026, following completion of the final approval process.

On 04 March 2026, HCJ received confirmation that an Internal Review was opened on 27 February 2026 in relation to the handling and timing of the FOI. The applicant had communicated their request to the Central Information Governance Office through emails of 26 February 2026 and 27 February 2026, as follows:

Applicant email of 26 February 2026 to CIGO (prior to issue of FOI response) 

Communicated to Health and Care Jersey 04 March 2026

“I note that the request was previously confirmed as due by close of business today, Thursday 26 February 2026, following the Scheduled Public Authority’s 10 working day extension.

I also note your further email issued at 16:51 on 26 February 2026 advising of an additional extension of 5 working days, with a response or update now due on Thursday 5 March 2026.

In light of the further extension issued on the day the response was due, and the cumulative extensions applied to this request, please treat this email as a formal request for Internal Review in relation to the handling and timing of FOI 771899440, in line with the published Internal Review procedure.

This Internal Review request is made on the basis of the repeated extensions and the lack of transparency requested in my earlier correspondence, including:

1. Rolling / partial disclosure where information has already been identified and is capable of disclosure.
2. A schedule of material and exemptions relied upon where any information is withheld in full or in part.
3. Confirmation of the statutory timetable being applied, including the date the request is treated as received for Article 13 purposes and confirmation that processing remains within the maximum period permitted by the relevant Regulations.​

Please confirm:​

• that an Internal Review has been opened
• the reviewer’s name/contact details, and
• the target date for completion”
  

Applicant email of 27 February 2026 to CIGO (following issue of FOI response) 

Communicated to Health and Care Jersey 04 March 2026

“Internal Review request (live)

On Thursday 26 February 2026 at 17:38, I submitted a formal request for Internal Review in relation to the handling and timing of FOI 771899440. For the avoidance of doubt, receipt of the SPA’s substantive response on 27 February 2026 does not withdraw or extinguish that Internal Review request.

Please confirm in writing:

1. That an Internal Review has been opened.
2. The reviewer’s name, role and contact details, together with confirmation that the reviewer was not involved in the original handling or decision.
3. The date the Internal Review is treated as received.
4. The target date for completion, noting the published Internal Review procedure indicates completion within 20 working days of receipt unless exceptional circumstances apply.

Statutory timetable clarification (as previously requested)

As part of the Internal Review concerning handling and timing, please also confirm the statutory timetable being applied, including:

• the date the request is treated as received for Article 13 purposes
  
• the basis and dates for the extensions applied
  

Supplementary grounds (to be treated within the same Internal Review)

I am reviewing the response and disclosed material now. Without prejudice to any further points that may arise on closer inspection, please treat the following as supplementary grounds within the existing Internal Review request, not as a new Internal Review:

A) 'New data set' position, dissemination, and categories of recipients

The SPA response states that providing supplementary detail such as categories of recipients would create a new data set and is not required. Please ask the reviewer to consider whether, by reference to information already held, for example distribution lists, group mailboxes, or To / CC fields, the SPA can confirm the categories of recipients at a high level, such as internal HCJ colleagues, mental health prescribers, community pharmacies, or GP practices, without disclosing personal email addresses under Article 25.

If the SPA maintains its position, please provide the reasoning for the conclusion that this element falls outside the duty to provide information held.

B) Scope and adequacy of searches

The SPA response indicates keyword searches of the HCJ email system were undertaken and identifies staff in scope. Please ask the reviewer to confirm:

i) The full scope of searches undertaken, including which systems were searched, whether email only or also Teams, SharePoint, intranet folders, or equivalent record stores.

ii) The date range applied and the search terms or keywords used, or if not recorded, a clear statement to that effect.

iii) Whether staff or functions beyond HCJ Pharmacy were considered for inclusion, particularly given Question B relates to management of the shortage in Jersey primary care.

C) Removed material, duplicates, and out-of-scope content

The SPA response notes duplicates, and some attachments were removed and that out-of-scope material was redacted. Please ask the reviewer to consider whether a short schedule, even in summary form, can be provided describing:

i) What was removed as duplicate or as attachments not meeting the criteria, and on what basis.

ii) Whether any information was withheld in full and, if so, the exemption or exemptions relied upon.

For clarity, I am mindful of the published procedure that an FOI response cannot be subject to more than one Internal Review. Accordingly, any further points identified from the disclosed material are intended to be treated as supplementary grounds within this same Internal Review, not a fresh Internal Review request.

If you consider any element above can only be progressed as a new FOI request rather than being capable of resolution via Internal Review, please advise before reclassifying anything..”

Internal Review Response​

The Deputy Medical Director and the Consultant Pharmacist (Digital Systems) were asked to undertake the Internal Review. Neither party had been involved in composing or approving the original response. 

The Internal Review was coordinated and administered by the HCJ FOI Officer, and took place at Jersey General Hospital on 24 March 2026. The in-scope FOI response and the Internal Review Procedure were shared with both reviewers on this day.

Both the Deputy Medical Director and the Consultant Pharmacist (Digital Systems) were asked to consider whether:

• the Freedom of Information request had been handled appropriately
• the request processing remained within the maximum period permitted by the relevant Regulations.
• it is possible to provide you with any further information, and ​

They will also provide an outcome of the internal review by stating whether:

• the original decision is upheld, or 
• the original decision is reversed in part or in full, or 
• the original decision is modified​

Was the request handled appropriately and processed within the maximum period permitted by the relevant Regulations?

In respect of timelines and extensions applied

Ahead of the Internal Review meeting, HCJ requested that the applicant be contacted with information to address their queries on the Internal Review process; confirmation that an Internal Review had been opened, the start date and due date for the review to be completed, and advice that the review panel would be identified (by role) in the Internal Review response were provided (to be communicated to the applicant via the Central Information Governance Office).

A timeline confirming the original FOI request start date, extensions applied and revised due date is provided below. An explanation of the extension requirement is shown, and is communicated in the notification sent to the applicant.

• Query received 08 December 2025 (start date), with due date 08/01/2026.​
• 20 working day extension requested on 08 January 2026 to identify the information requested and review records for in-scope correspondence, as well as complete any redactions required to comply with relevant legislation.– revised due date 05 February 2026.​
• Further 15 working day extension requested by HCJ on 05 February 2026 on the same basis as the previous request– revised due date should have been 26 February 2026.

The Central Information Governance Office instead applied a 5 working day extension, taking the deadline to 12 February 2026. A further extension of 10 days was therefore required, and the deadline was updated to 26 February 2026.

• At the revised deadline of 26 February 2026, the response was undergoing the final review and approval process, but this could not be completed. A final 5 working day extension was applied.​
• Response released 27 February 2026.

Whilst the initial period prescribed is 20 working days, the Law allows 65 days to respond to Freedom of Information requests, should such time be required and justified. System access was organised to complete email account searches and additional enquiries were conducted for information and documents outside of the email management system. System access is available to limited personnel to respond to requests for correspondence. The timescales for identification, review and any redaction of documentation necessary are influenced by volume of information in scope and resource availability. Timeframes to complete this response were impacted by availability of critical personnel, and apologies were extended for the delays in supplying the response.

All HCJ FOI responses and associated documents for disclosure must be reviewed and approved for release by the Chief Officer (or their delegate). Whilst the applicant suggested partial or rolling disclosure on 12 February 2026 through the Central Information Governance Office, this was not relayed to HCJ until 23 February 2026, by which time a full response to the request was almost prepared. Therefore, a partial or rolling disclosure was not feasible at that point. By 23 February 2026, it was anticipated that the full response would be available to disclose by the deadline of 26 February 2026. 

As noted above, an additional extension was required overnight to complete the final approval process, with the response issued 27 February 2026.

Is it possible to provide you with any further information?

In respect of the supplementary points from the applicant of 27 February 2026

A

As noted in the original response, all emails identified which were initiated by HCJ staff in this timeframe were sent internally to named colleagues. No outbound communications to GPs, Primary Care practices or community pharmacies were identified.

The correspondence includes targeted communications from Pharmacy to mental health prescribers, as well as emails between Pharmacy staff and the Medicines Safety Group. Where available in the correspondence, the roles of those involved in the communications or details of any groups for the communication are included in the disclosure pack.

B

All searches and enquiries observed the timeframe stipulated in the FOI request, from 01 November 2025 to 06 December 2025 (inclusive).

Keywords employed were ‘propranolol’ and ‘shortage’, whether these words appeared in the body of messages, in attachments, in subject lines or in headers.

HCJ Pharmacy were identified as the department with responsibility for communicating medicine shortages within HCJ, as outlined in the Standard Operating Procedure for the management of medicine shortages provided through the original response.

The Primary Care Governance Team (PCGT) support the cascading of medicine shortages to GPs and practice managers. The Minister for Social Security’s advisor to the Pharmaceutical Benefit Advisory Committee (PBAC), GP surgeries and Pharmacies communicates medicine shortages via email to the PCGT mailbox for dissemination on to GPs and practice managers, and to the Employment, Social Security and Housing department’s Healthzone mailbox for onward dissemination to community pharmacies.

Searches performed on the Primary Care Governance Team mailbox identified no inbound or outbound emails relating to the propranolol shortage within the timeframe.

In addition to the email system searches performed, direct enquiries were made with Pharmacy colleagues to request any information held to address the request. The Standard Operating Procedure for the management of medicine shortages in HCJ was obtained in this way.​

The Consultant Pharmacist assisting with the Internal Review confirmed that no communications were sent via Teams on this matter within the timeframe.

C

Duplicate items removed:​

• Calendar invite for 11 November 2025 (sent 10 November 2025) – One duplicate removed.
• Calendar invite for 18 November 2025 (sent 11 November 2025) – One duplicate removed.
• November 2025 Medicines Safety Update – attached in two emails; one copy included in disclosure, duplicate removed.

The October 2025 Medicines Safety Update attachment (attached to two separate emails included in the correspondence supplied) did not contain any information relating to a shortage of propranolol, and therefore, was not provided in the disclosure as it did not meet the scope of the request.

No documents or correspondence in scope of this request were withheld in full under an exemption of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.​

Outcome

It was agreed that HCJ appropriately handled the original response and that the information contained therein was accurate. Therefore, the original decision is upheld, with the acknowledgement that providing additional information through this response is acceptable, proportionate and supports transparency.

HCJ would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in disclosing the information that you requested and assure you that the HCJ team will endeavour to make improvements to our data collection and reporting practices, with the aim of reducing our response times as a result.