Boots Pharmacist Suspended for Nine Months for Theft from Employer

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated a pharmacist after she accepted a police caution for theft from her employer, Boots Pharmacy, Berkhamsted.

Between January and September 2018, the pharmacist:

1. Stole £6,291.83 in cash and stock from Boots Pharmacy.
2. Used her staff discount card to fraudulently process purchases.
3. Admitted to an internal investigator that she had been stealing “probably thousands of pounds” since early 2018.
4. Was dismissed from Boots following an internal disciplinary process.
5. Accepted a police caution for theft on 26 January 2020.

The pharmacist later applied for new roles in locum and clinical pharmacy settings but failed to disclose her caution and ongoing fitness to practise proceedings.

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee found that the pharmacist’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, considering:

1. Sustained Dishonesty and Breach of Trust:
   • The thefts took place over a nine-month period and involved both cash and stock.
   • She knew her actions were wrong but continued stealing until she was caught.
   • The committee noted:“The registrant’s actions represent a sustained abuse of trust. Pharmacists are expected to act with integrity at all times.”
2. Failure to Disclose Police Caution and GPhC Proceedings to New Employers:
   • The pharmacist worked as a locum pharmacist and later secured a role at a Primary Care Network (PCN) without informing her employers of her caution.
   • She used an outdated DBS certificate that did not show her police caution.
   • The committee ruled:“The registrant’s lack of transparency with new employers suggests an ongoing attitudinal failing.”
3. Admitted the Theft Only After Being Confronted:
   • During an internal investigation, the pharmacist admitted the thefts but only after being shown CCTV evidence.
   • She initially offered no explanation for her actions but later suggested she was influenced by peer pressure and a desire to “keep up with the Joneses.”
   • The committee determined:“The registrant’s dishonest conduct was not an isolated lapse but a sustained pattern of behaviour.”
4. Limited Insight and Remediation:
   • The pharmacist expressed remorse and repaid the stolen money.
   • However, she failed to provide a clear explanation for her actions and did not fully engage with remediation efforts.
   • The committee noted:“The registrant has not demonstrated full insight into her dishonesty or taken sufficient steps to address the underlying causes of her behaviour.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

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

• A serious breach of trust.
• A failure to disclose relevant information to new employers.
• Potential damage to public confidence in the pharmacy profession.

The committee stated:

“Theft from an employer is a serious offence that undermines trust in the profession. The registrant’s failure to disclose her caution to new employers further demonstrates a lack of integrity.”

However, the committee acknowledged that:

• The pharmacist expressed remorse and had repaid the money stolen.
• She had worked for three years post-incident without further complaints.
• She completed additional training on professional ethics and the duty of candour.

Given these factors, the committee found that:

“A period of suspension is necessary to uphold public confidence and reinforce the expectations of honesty and integrity within the pharmacy profession.”

Sanction:

The committee imposed a nine-month suspension, considering:

• Aggravating Factors:
  • Sustained dishonesty over a nine-month period.
  • Failure to disclose caution and GPhC proceedings to new employers.
  • Lack of full insight into the seriousness of her actions.
• Mitigating Factors:
  • Admitted wrongdoing and repaid the money stolen.
  • Expressed remorse and completed additional training.
  • Worked in pharmacy for three years post-incident without further concerns.

The committee ruled that:

“A nine-month suspension will allow the registrant time to reflect on her actions and further develop insight while sending a clear message about the importance of honesty and integrity in the profession.”

A review hearing will take place before the suspension ends to assess whether further action is necessary.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights critical lessons regarding professional integrity, transparency, and the importance of ethical conduct.

1. Dishonesty and Theft from an Employer Have Serious Consequences:
   • Pharmacists are in a position of trust, and any breach of that trust can result in regulatory action.
   • Even if an employer does not pursue criminal charges, the GPhC will still investigate.
2. Failure to Disclose Relevant Information to Employers Can Lead to Further Sanctions:
   • Pharmacists must inform new employers of any criminal cautions or ongoing fitness to practise investigations.
   • Using an outdated DBS certificate to avoid disclosure can be viewed as further dishonesty.
3. Engaging in Insight and Remediation Is Key to Regulatory Outcomes:
   • The pharmacist avoided removal from the register because she expressed remorse and took some steps towards remediation.
   • Failing to fully engage in the remediation process or provide a clear explanation for misconduct can result in harsher sanctions.
4. A Suspension Can Be a Proportionate Response to Serious Dishonesty:
   • A nine-month suspension reinforces the expectation that pharmacists must act with integrity.
   • Returning to practice will require the registrant to demonstrate a commitment to ethical conduct.

Conclusion:

This case serves as a clear warning that sustained dishonesty and failure to disclose relevant information can result in a lengthy suspension.

While the pharmacist avoided removal from the register, her nine-month suspension highlights the importance of professional honesty, transparency with employers, and maintaining trust in the pharmacy profession.

Pharmacy professionals must always act with integrity and ensure their conduct upholds the reputation of the profession.