Pharmacy Technician’s Suspension Extended Again Following Pretending to be a Doctor and Ignoring the GPhC

At the original Principal Hearing, the GPhC found that the registrant had committed multiple dishonest acts, including:

• Using NHS Trust letterhead to create a false reference claiming to be a doctor.
• Allowing a forged signature of a colleague to appear on that reference.
• Signing tenancy documents falsely claiming medical doctor status.
• Misleading colleagues by referring to himself as a doctor.

The Committee described the conduct as a pattern of dishonesty, stating:

“There was a pattern of dishonest behaviour which fell seriously below the standards expected of a pharmacy professional.”

They noted abuse of access to *professional resources, manipulation of colleagues, and *no initial evidence of insight or responsibility.

Previous Sanctions and Reviews

At the original hearing, the registrant was suspended for 12 months, with the option to apply for early review if remediation could be demonstrated. He was advised to submit:

• Written reflections
• Testimonials
• Evidence of CPD and development
• Proof of insight and responsibility

However, during two subsequent review hearings, the registrant:

• Failed to attend the first hearing and provided only minimal documentation.
• Submitted a reflective statement considered superficial and lacking engagement with the specific dishonesty findings.
• Did not engage at all before the second review hearing, offering no new evidence or explanations.

As the GPhC stated in the second review:

“Public confidence in the profession and in the regulator would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made.”

Current Findings (November 2020)

The Committee found that:

• The registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired.
• He has not discharged the burden of proving his integrity can now be relied upon.
• No meaningful remediation had been provided, despite repeated opportunities and guidance.

The panel referenced Abrahaem v GMC, confirming that they must determine whether the original concerns have been addressed—they had not.

“There must now be significant doubt as to whether this remediable impairment will in fact be remediated.”

Sanction

• The suspension was extended for a further six months.
• The Committee considered removal but deemed it premature, given that the misconduct was not at the most serious end.
• The panel warned that removal or indefinite suspension would be viable next time if there’s still no progress.

“The registrant should be clear that, if he fails to take the opportunity we are giving him, the next reviewing committee will have the option of indefinite suspension or removal.”

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Dishonesty—even outside clinical roles—is taken seriously – Misrepresenting one’s role or forging references undermines professional trust.
2. Using NHS resources for personal gain is misconduct – Access to letterheads, credentials, or systems must be respected.
3. Insight and remediation must be demonstrated – Professionals must explain, reflect, and actively show change.
4. Regulatory processes require active engagement – Ignoring review hearings and failing to submit evidence suggests ongoing risk.
5. Suspensions are not indefinite grace periods – Continued non-compliance can and will lead to permanent removal.

Conclusion

This case reflects a prolonged period of dishonesty, evasion, and professional disengagement, and the GPhC has extended the registrant’s suspension once more. The decision provides a final opportunity for the registrant to re-engage, show insight, and rehabilitate—or face potential erasure from the register.