Pharmacist Warned for Dishonest Pharmacy Quality Scheme (PQS) Claim

Date of Decision: August 7, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

• Submitted an NHS Pharmacy Quality Scheme (PQS) claim for 2021/2022 confirming all eligibility criteria had been met, including required training, when this was not the case.
• Stated to head office management that training evidence was left at home, when aware no such evidence existed as the required training had not been completed.
• Knowingly acted dishonestly and lacked integrity by making the claim and misleading management.

Outcome: Warning (published for 12 months on the GPhC register)

GPhC Standards Breached:

• Standard 3 – Pharmacy professionals must communicate effectively
• Standard 5 – Pharmacy professionals must use their professional judgement
• Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner
• Standard 8 – Pharmacy professionals must speak up when they have concerns or when things go wrong
• Standard 9 – Pharmacy professionals must demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations
This case centres on the registrant’s conduct in relation to the NHS Pharmacy Quality Scheme (PQS) for the year 2021/2022. The PQS is a contractual framework that rewards pharmacies for meeting a range of quality criteria, many of which relate to training, clinical governance, and patient safety. Between October 2021 and November 2022, the registrant, working as a pharmacist in a branch of a pharmacy chain, submitted a claim confirming that all eligibility criteria had been met. This included asserting that he had completed the required training.

The General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) allegation was that the registrant had not, in fact, completed this training. When challenged during a meeting with head office management on 17 November 2022, he claimed that his training certificates were at home. The reality, which the registrant was aware of, was that he had not undertaken the required training and therefore the certificates did not exist. This was deemed a deliberate act of dishonesty and a breach of integrity.

Findings
The Investigating Committee concluded that the registrant’s conduct fell significantly below the standards expected of a pharmacist. The false PQS claim amounted to an intentional misrepresentation to the NHS, and the subsequent untruth to management aggravated the seriousness of the matter.

The Committee considered that this behaviour was not an isolated oversight but a deliberate choice. It involved dishonesty in a matter linked to public funds and contractual obligations under the NHS community pharmacy framework. Such conduct undermines public trust not only in the individual but in the profession as a whole.

GPhC Determination on Impairment
The Committee assessed whether the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. While the matter was serious, they considered it in the context of the available evidence and the registrant’s professional history. The decision did not impose suspension or conditions but made clear that this dishonesty had breached multiple professional standards, including those relating to effective communication, professional judgement, professional behaviour, raising concerns, and leadership.

The Committee acknowledged that dishonesty, particularly in a professional context, is a serious matter that can often lead to stronger sanctions. However, they decided that in this case, a formal published warning would be proportionate.

Sanction
The final decision was to issue a warning, to remain on the public register for 12 months. The warning emphasised the expectation of honesty and integrity at all times, even under high workload pressures. The Committee stated:

“[The Registrant] is warned of the need to ensure that even in times where workloads and pressure increase, he upholds the high standards of honesty and integrity expected of registered pharmacy professionals.”

The warning further advised that if the registrant finds it difficult to meet these standards due to workload or other pressures, he must raise concerns and seek support immediately. Any repeat of such conduct would likely result in more serious regulatory action.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Honesty is non-negotiable – Whether dealing with NHS claims, patient records, or internal reporting, any form of dishonesty risks undermining trust and may amount to misconduct.
2. PQS compliance must be genuine – The NHS Pharmacy Quality Scheme has specific training and operational criteria. Claiming compliance without meeting them can amount to fraud and lead to regulatory action.
3. Workload pressures do not justify dishonesty – Heavy workloads are a recognised challenge in pharmacy practice, but they do not excuse false reporting or misrepresentation.
4. Importance of speaking up – If workload or operational pressures make meeting contractual obligations difficult, pharmacists must escalate concerns to management or relevant bodies.
5. Leadership responsibilities – Pharmacists often serve as role models for their teams. Demonstrating integrity under pressure reinforces good professional culture.
6. Regulatory consequences – Even where the sanction is “only” a warning, the reputational impact can be significant. Warnings are publicly visible and can affect career progression.
7. NHS claims are legal declarations – Submitting PQS or other NHS claims is not administrative “tick-box” work; it is a formal attestation with potential contractual and legal implications.

From a practical perspective, this case is a reminder that maintaining accurate training records is essential. Pharmacists should not sign off on PQS compliance until they have verified that all criteria are genuinely met. The expectation is not perfection under pressure, but transparency, accuracy, and professional accountability.

This case also reinforces the broader ethical principle that dishonesty—especially where public funds are concerned—is likely to attract regulatory scrutiny and can permanently damage a professional’s credibility. The decision to issue a warning rather than a harsher sanction should not be misinterpreted as leniency; rather, it reflects a proportionate response in the specific circumstances of this case. Future similar conduct by the registrant or others could lead to suspension or removal from the register.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.

Log in or Register for free to access.