NI Pharmacist Suspended for Repeated Theft and Misuse of POMs from Gordon Chemists

Date of Decision: March 13, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Dishonestly appropriated Neupro (2mg) transdermal patches from employer premises.
Unlawfully obtained Neupro patches without a valid prescription.
Stole various retail products on multiple dates.
Unlawfully obtained and failed to record supply of Metronidazole tablets.
Supplied POM to a family member without lawful authority.
Abused managerial position to acquire retail and medicinal products.
Breached professional and ethical standards in the conduct and handling of medications.

Outcome: Suspension for 6 months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 2.1.2 – Effectively control and manage the sale or supply of medicinal and related products, especially those with abuse potential.
Standard 2.1.6 – Ensure that actions or omissions do not risk patient care or public safety.
Standard 2.1.11 – Avoid treating yourself or those close to you, except in emergencies or for minor ailments.
Standard 2.3.1 – Complete records promptly or as soon as practicable after intervention.
Standard 3.1.1 – Adhere to acceptable personal and professional conduct at all times.
Standard 3.1.2 – Maintain public trust and confidence through honesty and integrity in all professional dealings.

Case Summary

Allegations

The case involved a registered pharmacist employed as a Pharmacy Manager at Gordons Chemists, Belfast, who was subject to multiple allegations of serious professional misconduct. Between October 2023 and February 2024, the registrant engaged in a repeated pattern of dishonesty involving the theft of prescription-only medications (POMs) and retail items, misuse of prescription protocols, and breaches of standard operating procedures.

The pharmacist was specifically accused of:

Stealing 14 boxes of Neupro (2mg) transdermal patches, a dopamine agonist used for conditions like Parkinson’s disease, which had been returned to the pharmacy for destruction after a patient’s death.
Taking Metronidazole tablets (an antimicrobial POM) for use by a family member without any valid prescription.
Failing to record the supply of the Metronidazole, in breach of both legal and SOP documentation requirements.
Appropriating various retail products, including deodorants, razor blades, and Chlorhexidine mouthwash, on multiple dates.
Lying when first confronted and only admitting to misconduct when faced with CCTV evidence.

This pattern of dishonest behaviour was deemed particularly concerning given his managerial role, which carried added responsibility for supervising controlled access to medicines and upholding professional standards.

Findings

The panel found the facts admitted by the registrant to be fully proven. His actions constituted serious misconduct under the law (Theft Act (NI) 1969) and breached key standards of the Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland (PSNI).

Key findings included:

Theft occurred on three distinct occasions.
Dishonesty was central to all incidents.
Controlled medication was accessed without authority and without clinical justification.
The registrant attempted to mislead investigators and initially denied his actions.
No proper records were kept for the supply of a POM (Metronidazole), representing a significant failure in documentation.
The registrant inappropriately treated a family member in violation of professional boundaries.

“The Registrant acted dishonestly on each of the three occasions… His misconduct amounted to an abuse of a privileged position of trust.”
Committee Decision

Despite a previously unblemished 24-year career and support from professional references, the repeated nature of the misconduct and the lack of a clear rationale or insight led the panel to view the registrant’s behaviour as gravely concerning.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired. This decision was based on the severity, frequency, and nature of the dishonest acts, along with the failure to demonstrate sufficient insight or undertake meaningful remediation.

They specifically noted:

The misconduct was not an isolated lapse but extended over several months.
There was an absence of any clear explanation for the behaviour.
Dishonesty was compounded by the registrant’s attempts to avoid accountability until confronted with incontrovertible evidence.
Public confidence in the profession would be undermined if no finding of impairment were made.

The panel emphasized the importance of upholding public trust and ensuring that the pharmacy profession remains aligned with ethical standards.

Sanction

After careful consideration, the Committee imposed a suspension of six months. They rejected alternatives such as a warning or conditional registration, stating these would not adequately protect the public interest or ensure accountability.

The suspension was not permanent, as the panel considered that the registrant’s behaviour, while serious, was not fundamentally incompatible with continued registration. However, they stressed the need for the registrant to demonstrate:

A deep understanding of the consequences and motivations behind the misconduct.
Evidence of genuine remediation efforts, such as participation in ethics training.
A clear plan for safe return to practice, addressing behavioural and professional shortfalls.

Failure to meet these expectations during the review could result in more severe sanctions, including possible removal from the register.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Professional boundaries are non-negotiable: Supplying POMs to family members without a valid prescription not only breaches standards but risks patient safety.
Controlled and high-risk medicines demand rigorous oversight: Neupro patches, containing rotigotine, pose significant risks if misused. The theft of such medications is a severe violation.
Documentation is critical: The absence of PMR entries or emergency supply justification underscores how poor record-keeping can be a major risk factor.
Dishonesty fundamentally undermines professional integrity: Pharmacy professionals must understand that even low-value theft, when repeated, signals deeper professional issues.
Early admission and insight matter: The registrant delayed acknowledgment until presented with CCTV evidence. Early and sincere acceptance of fault is critical for professional redemption.
Sanctions are not purely punitive: Regulatory responses aim to uphold public safety and confidence, not to punish. However, this doesn’t reduce the seriousness with which dishonest conduct is treated.
Supportive references must reflect recent conduct: While prior good character may mitigate, references must address current insight and risk mitigation to carry real weight.

This case is a sobering reminder of the high ethical standards expected of pharmacists. Even longstanding professionals must continually reflect on their conduct and decision-making, particularly when handling medications that can cause harm if misused.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.