Pharmacy Technician Removed from GPhC Register for Dishonesty in Job Applications and Regulatory Hearings

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated a pharmacy technician after dishonestly misrepresenting her fitness to practise status and failing to disclose conditions placed on her registration.

Following a 2018 Principal Hearing, she was found impaired due to misconduct and deficient professional performance, which led to a Conditions of Practice Order in July 2019. The order required her to:

• Notify prospective and current employers about the restrictions on her practice.
• Work under close supervision and follow a personal development plan.
• Avoid working as a locum or relief technician.

Despite these conditions, she:

1. Failed to disclose her conditions when applying for a job at Bromley GP Alliance in June/July 2020.
2. Provided false information on a DBS self-declaration form in October 2020.
3. Misled the GPhC in a December 2020 review hearing, falsely claiming that her employer knew of her conditions.
4. Gave a false account of her role, stating she did not take medication histories, which was a key part of her job.

The misconduct was discovered in February 2021, leading to her dismissal from Bromley GP Alliance.

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee determined that the pharmacy technician’s actions constituted serious professional misconduct, considering:

1. Repeated Dishonesty Over a Sustained Period:
   • She falsely answered questions on multiple formal documents, including job applications, DBS forms, and GPhC hearings.
   • The dishonesty continued for over 18 months, showing deliberate and sustained deception.
2. Failure to Comply with GPhC Conditions of Practice:
   • She was required to disclose her conditions to employers but deliberately failed to do so.
   • The conditions were imposed to protect patient safety, making her actions particularly serious.
3. Providing False Evidence to the GPhC Review Hearing:
   • She misled the committee by stating that her employer was aware of her conditions, which was later proven false.
   • She also falsely claimed that she did not take medication histories, despite it being part of her job description.
4. Employer’s Discovery and Dismissal:
   • In January 2021, her employer discovered the Conditions of Practice Order after concerns arose about her clinical competence.
   • She was unable to provide a clear explanation when confronted, and was dismissed following a disciplinary hearing in February 2021.

The committee found that:

“The Registrant’s dishonesty was sustained and calculated to mislead both her employer and her regulator. Her actions were incompatible with continued registration as a pharmacy professional.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

The GPhC ruled that the pharmacy technician’s fitness to practise was impaired, citing:

• A pattern of deliberate dishonesty over an extended period.
• Breach of fundamental trust in the profession.
• Lack of insight or remediation efforts.

The committee stated:

“The deliberate concealment of fitness to practise conditions, combined with dishonesty in official documents, represents a fundamental breach of trust. The pharmacy technician’s actions were incompatible with continued registration.”

They concluded that removal from the register was the only proportionate sanction.

Sanction:

The committee imposed removal from the GPhC register, considering:

• Aggravating Factors:
  • Repeated dishonesty across multiple instances (job application, DBS form, review hearing).
  • Failure to disclose conditions that were explicitly imposed to protect patient safety.
  • Attempting to deceive both the employer and the regulator.
• Mitigating Factors:
  • The pharmacy technician had personal difficulties, including challenges finding employment.
  • She had no previous fitness to practise issues before 2018.
  • However, these factors did not outweigh the seriousness of her dishonesty.

The GPhC imposed an interim suspension immediately, preventing her from practising before the removal took effect.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights critical lessons regarding honesty, transparency, and compliance with regulatory conditions.

1. Dishonesty in Official Documents Leads to Severe Consequences:
   • Providing false information on job applications, DBS forms, or regulatory hearings is a serious offence.
   • Any attempt to mislead employers or regulators can result in removal from the GPhC register.
2. Failure to Disclose Fitness to Practise Conditions is a Major Breach:
   • Pharmacy professionals must disclose any regulatory conditions to employers.
   • Employers rely on this information to assess fitness to practise and patient safety risks.
3. GPhC Expects High Standards of Honesty and Integrity:
   • The committee found that sustained dishonesty was fundamentally incompatible with professional registration.
   • Even in cases where patient harm did not occur, dishonesty alone is enough to warrant removal.
4. Regulatory Conditions Must Be Taken Seriously:
   • The Conditions of Practice Order was designed to help the technician return to safe practice.
   • Instead of engaging with the process, she attempted to avoid scrutiny by misleading employers.
5. Removal from the GPhC Register is a Likely Outcome for Dishonesty:
   • The GPhC consistently removes registrants found guilty of deliberate dishonesty.
   • Pharmacy professionals must act transparently, even under difficult circumstances.