Pharmacy Technician Suspended for Tamiflu Dishonesty and Repeated Dispensing Failures

Date of Decision:

Registrant's Role:

Outcome:

Case Summary

Allegations

This case revolves around a pharmacy technician whose fitness to practise was called into question due to a combination of dishonesty and repeated professional failings. The most serious allegation involved the registrant’s false claim that a pharmacist had authorised the dispensing of six oseltamivir tablets. Oseltamivir is an antiviral used in the treatment of influenza, and dispensing it without appropriate authorisation raises significant concerns due to its clinical specificity and regulatory control.

The registrant claimed to a colleague (Colleague A) that “[Pharmacist B] had requested and/or directed that six oseltamivir tablets be dispensed,” and went as far as to falsely endorse the prescription to that effect. This act of deception formed the crux of the misconduct allegations.

In addition to dishonesty, the registrant failed to meet repeated performance targets set during informal and formal capability procedures. These included:

• Failing to complete drug histories accurately (including omitting or misdocumenting medicines like Tansilodin, Pregastatin, Antodopine, and incorrect dosages of Doxazosin).
• Failing to verify medication histories with patients or their representatives.
• Dispensing errors, such as issuing the wrong strength of ibuprofen, incorrect tablet counts, or mislabeling antibiotics like Amoxicillin.
• Avoiding performance review discussions, showing poor communication, and displaying unprofessional behaviour toward colleagues.

Findings

The initial Fitness to Practise Committee (“the Previous Committee”) found almost all allegations proved. The dishonesty allegation was considered particularly grave, as the registrant not only lied but attempted to shift blame onto a pharmacist colleague.

“…this was a wholly misguided spur-of-the-moment decision to lie… The real concern is how she persisted in that lie… maintaining instead that a professional colleague was responsible… and that colleague is therefore the one who is lying.”

The panel found that this dishonesty, combined with a consistent inability to meet critical clinical standards and professional expectations, amounted to both serious misconduct and deficient professional performance.

It was determined that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired under all four limbs of Rule 5(2) of the GPhC Fitness to Practise Rules due to:

• The difficulty in remedying dishonesty.
• A lack of insight and professional reflection.
• No evidence of remediation or continued professional development (CPD).
• The need to uphold public confidence in the profession.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

At the review hearing, the Committee assessed whether the registrant had addressed the original concerns. Encouragingly, since her suspension, the registrant had completed multiple online CPD activities, submitted a personal development plan, and attended a six-week ‘Return to Register’ course.

She accepted the dishonesty finding, expressed shame, and acknowledged the damage her actions caused to public trust and professional integrity. She also recognised the impact of her past underperformance, stating:

“It is with great disappointment that I entirely accept that I did not reach the required levels of performance in some important respects during that period.”

Despite this, the Committee noted some limitations in her remediation. Specifically, there was concern she focused excessively on undertaking external training (such as an Accuracy Checking Technician course) rather than demonstrating competence in basic roles through actual practice.

Ultimately, the Committee concluded that her fitness to practise remained impaired, but her recent progress warranted supervised re-entry into the profession under strict conditions.

Sanction

Rather than continuing suspension, the Committee opted for conditional registration for 18 months, subject to rigorous supervision and performance monitoring. Key conditions include:

• Notification to the GPhC of any work undertaken.
• Transparency with all employers about restrictions.
• Development of a personal plan targeting her past failings.
• Appointment of an approved supervisor and mentor.
• Prohibition on working as a locum or in relief roles.
• Quarterly progress and error reporting.

This conditional order aims to support the registrant’s return while safeguarding public safety and maintaining professional standards.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Integrity is Non-Negotiable: Dishonesty—even in stressful circumstances—can have enduring consequences. Pharmacy professionals must never falsify records or shift blame.
2. Documentation Accuracy Matters: Errors in medication histories or dispensing—especially involving controlled or high-risk drugs—can have critical clinical implications.
3. Professional Conduct Under Scrutiny: Avoiding performance reviews or failing to engage with line managers demonstrates poor attitude and breaches GPhC standards.
4. Remediation Requires Action, Not Just Words: Insight and remorse must be supported by concrete, sustained efforts at improvement through practical experience.
5. CPD Should Be Relevant and Practical: Enrolling in courses is not enough. Registrants must show they can apply what they learn to real-world pharmacy settings.
6. Supervision Can Rebuild Trust: Conditions such as close mentoring, structured development plans, and performance reporting are essential tools to ensure a safe and effective return to practice.

This case reinforces the importance of professional accountability, continuous improvement, and the readiness to seek help or training proactively—before errors or misconduct occur.