Pharmacist Warned for Remotely Approving Prescriptions via WhatsApp While Pharmacy Operated Unsupervised

Date of Decision: October 16, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

The registrant acted as the Responsible Pharmacist on six separate dates but was not physically present at the pharmacy.
The pharmacy remained operational without a responsible pharmacist on site.
Prescription medication was prepared and/or supplied by unqualified staff during the registrant's absence.
The registrant reviewed prescriptions via WhatsApp messages and authorized supply using emoji or brief text confirmations.
On one occasion, the registrant was absent for approximately eight hours while knowing there was no responsible pharmacist present and did not arrange for closure or cessation of services.

Outcome: Warning

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 6 – Behave professionally
Standard 8 – Speak up when you have concerns or when things go wrong

Case Summary

Allegations

This case revolves around a registered pharmacist who served as the Responsible Pharmacist at Swindon Pharmacy on six specified dates in late 2022 and mid-2023. Despite being officially responsible, the registrant was not physically present at the pharmacy on any of those dates.

Critically, while the pharmacy was operational without a pharmacist on-site, prescription medication was prepared and, in some instances, supplied by unqualified staff. Communication and authorisation of these supplies were conducted remotely through WhatsApp. The registrant responded to photo messages of prescriptions or medication sent by staff using emoji (such as the “thumbs up” 👍) or other brief messages that implied authorisation.

Furthermore, on 19 October 2022, the registrant was aware that there was no responsible pharmacist present but remained absent for nearly eight hours without taking the required step of arranging for the pharmacy’s closure or stopping the dispensing of medication.

These actions directly contravened legal and regulatory expectations for pharmacy operations, which require the physical presence of a responsible pharmacist to oversee the safe supply of medicines and ensure professional standards are maintained.

Findings

The GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee found allegations 1, 3, and parts of 2 (2.1–2.4) to be proven, with facts 1 and 3 admitted by the registrant. Allegations 2.5 and 4 were not proved.

The Committee acknowledged the registrant’s honesty in admitting several of the charges and took into account their full cooperation with the investigation. Notably, the registrant displayed genuine remorse and had undertaken steps to reflect on and remediate their conduct. These included engaging in relevant continuing professional development (CPD) and demonstrating an understanding of the gravity of their actions.

The Committee accepted that the registrant had not intended to compromise patient safety, but the way the situation was handled still posed significant risks and undermined the professionalism expected in pharmacy practice.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was not currently impaired. This decision was based on a combination of the registrant’s insight, remorse, lack of repetition, and the remediation undertaken. The panel found no evidence to suggest that the registrant posed a continuing risk to public safety or that there was a need to restrict their practice.

Nonetheless, the Committee emphasized that the registrant’s behaviour had been unacceptable and fell well below professional standards.

“The Council’s Standards require that pharmacy professionals behave in a professional manner. This includes refraining from leaving a pharmacy without a responsible pharmacist and remotely checking prescriptions via a phone.”

By remotely authorising prescription supplies and being absent from the pharmacy for an extended period, the registrant engaged in conduct that “brought the profession of pharmacy into disrepute and breached fundamental tenets of the pharmacy profession.”

Sanction

Although no impairment was found, the seriousness of the registrant’s actions warranted a formal warning. The Committee issued a public warning that will remain on the GPhC register for 12 months.

This warning serves as a clear reminder to the registrant—and the profession more broadly—of the importance of adhering strictly to legal responsibilities associated with being a Responsible Pharmacist. Any future similar conduct could lead to a more severe sanction.

The Committee explicitly stated:

“Such actions may place patients at risk and negatively affect the reputation of pharmacy professionals and must not be repeated.”

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Physical Presence Is Essential: A pharmacist must be physically present to fulfil the role of the Responsible Pharmacist. Remote supervision, including authorising dispensing via WhatsApp or any other digital platform, is not acceptable.
Unqualified Staff Must Not Dispense: Allowing untrained or unqualified staff to prepare or supply medications—especially in the absence of a supervising pharmacist—can significantly compromise patient safety and violate regulatory standards.
Professional Communication: Using informal communication methods like emoji for clinical decisions undermines the professionalism required in healthcare settings.
Responsible Pharmacist Regulations Must Be Followed: The law requires a pharmacy to cease operations if no responsible pharmacist is present. The registrant’s failure to close the pharmacy or stop dispensing when absent for eight hours is a stark example of poor adherence to this rule.
Importance of Remediation and Insight: The registrant avoided a finding of impairment largely due to proactive remediation, reflection, and insight. Pharmacy professionals must continually review their conduct and take early steps to address any regulatory concerns.
Warnings Can Have Consequences: Although not a suspension or restriction, a warning is a public statement that can affect professional reputation and serves as a formal acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

This case underscores that even well-intentioned attempts to manage workload or patient demand must never compromise legal and ethical standards. Pharmacists must ensure full compliance with their professional duties, particularly where public safety is concerned.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.