Boots Pharmacist Suspended for Repeated Theft and Unlawful Supply of Prescription Medicines

Date of Decision: June 12, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Theft of general medical supplies from the pharmacy without payment.
Theft of Orlistat, a prescription-only medicine, from the pharmacy.
Dispensing and/or supplying multiple prescription-only medicines without valid prescriptions.
Failure to make any record of emergency supplies when applicable.
Dishonest conduct over a prolonged period.
Misleading subsequent employer and referee about the reasons for leaving previous employment.

Outcome: 12-month suspension order

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner
Standard 8 – Be open and honest when things go wrong
Standard 9 – Take responsibility for your practice

Case Summary

Allegations

The case involved a pharmacist who, over an extended period, engaged in multiple acts of dishonesty and professional misconduct. The registrant was alleged to have stolen a variety of medical supplies and prescription-only medicines from his place of employment without valid prescriptions or any appropriate documentation. Items taken included both over-the-counter goods (such as surgical dressings, face wipes, and nutritional supplements) and prescription medications like Orlistat, insulin, citalopram, and risperidone, among others. The registrant also dispensed medications to a family member without proper prescriptions and failed to log emergency supplies, in breach of Human Medicines Regulations 2012.

The misconduct came to light following internal audits that revealed discrepancies in stock. Subsequent investigations included an interview with the registrant by his employer, where he admitted to the thefts and improper dispensing. These admissions were later reiterated in a police interview, after which he received a Community Resolution Order. Despite offering to repay the cost of stolen items, no reimbursement was ever made.

Findings

The panel found the allegations proven, citing that the conduct was a significant departure from expected professional standards. They emphasized that the acts of theft and the failure to maintain proper records were repeated over approximately 16 months and involved deliberate decisions to disregard professional responsibilities.

The registrant attempted to justify his actions by referencing personal stressors, including threatening behavior from patients, financial hardship, and extensive caregiving responsibilities. While acknowledging these pressures, the panel remained unconvinced that these circumstances justified the extent and duration of the misconduct.

Importantly, the panel noted inconsistencies and attempts by the registrant to minimize his wrongdoing. This included misleading his new employer and referee about his departure from the previous role and stating false information to the GPhC regarding his employment status.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel applied Rule 5(2) of the GPhC’s fitness to practise rules, finding that the registrant’s conduct presented a risk to public confidence in the profession. The registrant’s actions were deemed to have brought the profession into disrepute, breached fundamental principles of honesty and integrity, and demonstrated questionable reliability of character.

While the registrant had shown some remorse and reflection, his minimization of events, inconsistencies in testimony, and partial disclosures were concerning. The panel found that the registrant’s insight was limited and that there remained a risk of repetition.

“Until he has developed full insight, and is prepared to be totally forthright about his misconduct, there remains a risk of repetition of dishonest behaviour.”

Given these findings, the panel concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired.

Sanction

In determining the appropriate sanction, the panel considered the range of outcomes, ultimately ruling out warnings or conditions of practice as insufficient. Given the premeditated and prolonged nature of the misconduct and the need to uphold public confidence and professional standards, a suspension order was deemed necessary.

While recognizing that dishonesty cases can warrant removal from the register, the panel determined that a 12-month suspension was proportionate. They considered the registrant’s circumstances, remorse, the absence of direct patient harm, and his interim suspension period.

The panel emphasized that the suspension serves not as punishment but as a necessary measure to maintain public trust and demonstrate the seriousness with which professional misconduct is regarded.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Uphold Integrity at All Times: Dishonest actions, particularly involving theft and record falsification, strike at the heart of public trust in pharmacists. Integrity is non-negotiable in pharmacy practice.
Comply with Legal and Regulatory Requirements: Supplying medication without a valid prescription or proper record-keeping violates not only GPhC standards but also the Human Medicines Regulations.
Maintain Full Transparency with Employers and Regulators: Misleading employers or regulators can have severe repercussions and may aggravate the original misconduct.
Seek Help When Struggling: Pharmacists facing personal or professional stressors should access support systems rather than compromise professional standards.
Insight and Remediation Are Critical: Full acceptance of wrongdoing and proactive remediation are crucial in demonstrating fitness to return to practice.

This case serves as a powerful reminder that honesty, responsibility, and adherence to professional standards are fundamental pillars of pharmacy practice.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.