Pharmacist’s Suspension Lifted After Failing to Disclose Business Interests While Employed as Practice-Based Pharmacist

Date of Decision: January 28, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Failure to declare a financial interest in a distance selling pharmacy while employed as a practice-based pharmacist.
Attempting to divert prescriptions to her own pharmacy for personal gain.
Delivering medication to a patient on behalf of her own pharmacy while employed elsewhere.
Offering financial incentives to a colleague to forward prescriptions to her pharmacy.
Acting without integrity and failing to uphold professional responsibilities.
Making misleading statements about the reason for leaving a previous employer.

Outcome: Suspension lifted; registrant deemed no longer impaired and permitted to return to unrestricted practice.

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Provide person-centred care
Standard 6 – Behave professionally
Standard 8 – Speak up when they have concerns or when things go wrong
Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations

This case concerns a pharmacist who was initially suspended for failing to maintain professional integrity by not declaring a conflict of interest while working as a GP practice-based pharmacist. The registrant held a directorial interest in a distance selling pharmacy but continued to work in a GP practice without informing her employer of this affiliation.

Between March and July 2017, while contracted to the GP practice, she failed to disclose this interest. During the same period, she attempted to redirect prescriptions to her own pharmacy and even offered financial incentives to a colleague to do so. She also delivered medication to a patient on behalf of her business while still under contract with the GP practice.

The GPhC alleged dishonesty in these actions, arguing that they undermined public trust and contravened the responsibilities expected of pharmacists. While the registrant admitted most factual allegations—including the financial interest, the delivery of medication, and the offer of incentives—she denied dishonesty. The original Fitness to Practise Committee found that although her actions lacked integrity, they were not dishonest.

Additional allegations concerning misleading explanations for her departure from the GP practice were found not proved.

Findings

The original hearing in September 2018 found that the registrant acted without integrity by prioritising personal business interests over her responsibilities to patients and her employer. She failed to disclose her commercial interests despite knowing the professional obligation to do so.

The panel considered this a serious departure from expected behaviour, stating:

“The findings of lack of integrity were such that the confidence in the profession would be undermined if a finding of impairment were not made.”

Aggravating features included:

Failure to take responsibility for professional obligations.
Prioritising personal gain over patient care.
Lack of insight at the time of the hearing.

However, mitigating features were also acknowledged:

A previously unblemished record.
Personal family difficulties.
Active engagement in the process and expressions of remorse.

As a result, a four-month suspension was imposed with a review ordered before its expiration.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

At the review hearing held on 28 January 2019, the committee reassessed the registrant’s fitness to practise. They reviewed extensive documentation, including a reflective piece submitted by the registrant, evidence of her compliance with the suspension, and testimonials regarding her professional conduct during the interim.

The panel recognised the registrant’s improved insight and remorse. She had disclosed her suspension to senior colleagues, expressed genuine understanding of her misconduct, and demonstrated a clear plan for avoiding future ethical breaches.

The committee accepted that the registrant:

Acknowledged the harm caused to the profession.
Took responsibility for past actions.
Made efforts to address the personal circumstances contributing to the misconduct.

As the committee stated:

“The sanction imposed at the time has served its purpose and has refocused the Registrant on the standards to be expected of a Pharmacist.”

They concluded that her fitness to practise was no longer impaired, lifting the suspension and allowing her to return to work without restrictions.

Sanction

The original sanction—a four-month suspension—was deemed sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct and to protect public confidence. The review committee found no grounds to extend or modify the sanction, allowing the registrant to return to unrestricted practice.

The decision to not pursue removal from the register was based on proportionality, recognising the absence of harm to patients and the significant professional and personal consequences already faced by the registrant.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Full Disclosure of Interests Is Mandatory: Pharmacists must disclose any commercial interests, especially when these could conflict with their duties in another role. Failing to do so breaches fundamental standards of integrity.
Personal Gain Should Never Override Professional Duty: Attempting to divert prescriptions for personal or business gain—even without direct harm to patients—is a serious breach of trust.
Integrity Is as Important as Clinical Competence: This case did not involve clinical failings but centred on ethical lapses. It demonstrates that professional integrity is just as critical to fitness to practise as clinical knowledge.
Insight and Remediation Are Key in Fitness to Practise Reviews: The registrant’s ability to reflect, take responsibility, and implement behavioural changes played a crucial role in the committee’s decision to reinstate her registration.
Support Networks Can Aid Professional Recovery: The registrant sought help from the Pharmacist Support Group, showing that professional support systems are valuable in helping pharmacists navigate difficult times.
Transparent Communication with Employers Is Essential: The registrant’s failure to inform her GP employer of her new business venture led to a breakdown in trust and eventual termination of her contract. Pharmacy professionals must communicate openly and proactively about potential conflicts.

This case underscores the importance of ethical decision-making and proactive professionalism. While clinical errors may be more visible, breaches of integrity can be just as damaging to public trust and professional standing.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.