Pharmacist Suspended for Forging Employer Details and Misleading University for Postgraduate Pharmacy Course Funding

The registrant applied for a Clinical Pharmacy Practice course with funding from the Pharmacy Integration Fund, which required the applicant to be working in England. To appear eligible:

• He claimed falsely to be working at a pharmacy in England (which he had never done).
• Submitted a CV stating ongoing locum work in that pharmacy since 2015.
• Completed an Employer Support Form using the name and signature of a real pharmacist—without their permission—to confirm a false employment relationship.
• Indicated on the form that his main practice base was in South West England, when in fact he was based in Wales.

Once the deception was discovered, the registrant tried to prevent the university from releasing information to his current employer, writing:

“It would be best if you could somehow nullify his request by stating that you are not able to pass on any confidential information due to data protection/GDPR.”

Findings

The GPhC panel found the registrant’s behaviour to be serious, sustained dishonesty, compounded by his later attempts to conceal what he had done.

He admitted the dishonesty but claimed his fitness to practise was no longer impaired, citing:

• Deep remorse and embarrassment
• Religious guidance and pilgrimage
• Voluntary work and personal development
• CPD in ethics, professionalism, and resilience

However, the panel concluded:

“The registrant has not yet developed full insight… he remains currently impaired.”

While the registrant expressed remorse and had taken many positive steps, he could not explain why he acted dishonestly, nor why he had lied to colleagues after the fact. The Committee stated:

“He was unable to say what was in his mind when he misled in his CV, ‘ticked the incorrect boxes,’ and forged his manager’s signature.”

The dishonesty was found to be deliberate and premeditated, lasting over a month. There was no evidence he attempted to repay public funds potentially obtained through the deception.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

• The panel found his fitness to practise was currently impaired, based on:
  • The seriousness of the misconduct
  • Damage to public confidence in the profession
  • Lack of full insight and understanding of his behaviour

The panel referenced legal tests on misconduct and impairment, including Cohen v GMC and CHRE v NMC (Grant), concluding that the case involved:

• Breach of fundamental pharmacy principles
• Damage to the profession’s reputation
• A concern that integrity could not yet be relied upon

Sanction

The panel imposed a 12-month suspension, the maximum possible before erasure is considered, with a review hearing at the end of the period.

The panel stated:

“Suspension is required to highlight to the profession and the public that this conduct is unacceptable and unbefitting a pharmacist.”

They seriously considered removal from the register but found that:

• The registrant had no previous fitness to practise history
• He had undertaken significant voluntary work and self-improvement
• The dishonesty, while serious, was not the most extreme form (e.g. patient harm or direct financial fraud)

An interim suspension took immediate effect in the public interest due to the nature of the misconduct.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Dishonesty related to professional applications is misconduct – Even if no patient harm occurs, falsifying qualifications, employment, or applications breaches professional standards.
2. Forging a colleague’s signature is a grave offence – It undermines trust and can have legal and reputational consequences for others.
3. Insight must include understanding why the misconduct occurred – Remorse and reform are incomplete without introspection.
4. Covering up misconduct worsens the outcome – Attempting to prevent information from reaching employers and regulators adds to the seriousness.
5. Professionalism includes personal integrity – Embellishing or lying about qualifications for self-advancement is incompatible with pharmacy practice.

Conclusion

This case demonstrates how professional dishonesty—particularly involving applications, funding, and falsified documents—can lead to significant sanctions, even when there is no direct patient harm. The registrant’s incomplete insight and premeditated conduct led to the maximum suspension period. The outcome highlights the importance of honesty, transparency, and accountability in all aspects of pharmacy practice.