Clinical Pharmacist Warned for Falsifying Patient Records: A Cautionary Tale on Documentation Integrity

Date of Decision: October 27, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Creation of false patient records by documenting conversations that did not occur
Misleading and inaccurate entries which posed a risk to patient safety
Conduct that called into question the registrant’s honesty and integrity

Outcome: Warning issued and published on the GPhC register for 12 months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Provide person-centred care
Standard 3 – Communicate effectively
Standard 5 – Use professional judgment
Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner

Case Summary

Allegations

This case revolves around a clinical pharmacist employed by Coventry and Rugby GP Alliance (CRGPA) who was found to have created false entries in patient records. The conduct in question took place between December 2023 and January 2024, during which the registrant recorded details of patient interactions that had never occurred. Specifically, these entries included fabricated notes suggesting that consultations had taken place when they had not, thereby misleading colleagues and creating inaccurate medical records.

The crux of the allegations lies in the serious professional implications of falsified documentation. Patient records serve as the backbone of continuity in care and clinical decision-making. In this instance, the creation of inaccurate records could have led to unsafe treatment decisions, posing a real risk to patient safety. The conduct was seen not only as a direct breach of professional responsibility but also as a reflection of poor judgment and a concerning lapse in honesty and integrity.

Findings

The General Pharmaceutical Council’s Investigating Committee found that the registrant had indeed created misleading patient records without any actual consultation taking place. These actions were considered deliberate and carried the potential for significant adverse consequences.

While there was no evidence of actual patient harm resulting from the fabricated entries, the committee highlighted that such actions “placed the patients affected at risk of harm.” The gravity of the misconduct was further amplified by the fact that it called into question the registrant’s professional trustworthiness and ethical standards—qualities deemed essential for pharmacy professionals.

“Creating incorrect and misleading records means that a patient’s future treatment plans could be made on a flawed basis, which in turn could lead to unsafe treatment decisions being made.”

This statement underscores the seriousness of the issue from a clinical safety standpoint, regardless of whether actual harm occurred.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

Although the case did not proceed to a full fitness-to-practise hearing, the Investigating Committee assessed the potential impairment to the registrant’s fitness to practise. It concluded that the conduct demonstrated significant lapses in honesty, integrity, and professionalism—key traits expected from any pharmacist. The fact that the registrant’s actions were not isolated mistakes, but rather involved fabricated interactions, marked a troubling deviation from accepted practice.

The committee was particularly concerned with the implications of the conduct on public confidence in the profession. Given that the pharmacy profession is entrusted with safeguarding public health, maintaining accurate records, and acting with transparency, any action that undermines these foundations is treated with utmost seriousness.

Sanction

The Committee determined that a published warning was the proportionate response. The warning explicitly outlined the nature of the misconduct and its implications. It emphasized the centrality of patient safety, professional integrity, and accurate record-keeping in pharmacy practice. The warning is to remain visible on the GPhC register for 12 months, serving as both a public disclosure and a professional reminder to the registrant.

The Committee concluded:

“Patient safety and person-centred care must be at the very heart of any service [the registrant] provides and any decision [they] make. Patients trust pharmacy professionals to keep accurate records… Failures to do so undermine public confidence.”

The registrant was cautioned that any recurrence of similar behaviour would likely trigger more severe regulatory consequences.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

The Importance of Accurate Record-Keeping: Pharmacists must understand that even minor inaccuracies in patient records can have far-reaching clinical consequences. The falsification of records—even without malicious intent—can compromise patient care and erode trust in the profession.
Trust and Integrity are Non-Negotiable: The profession of pharmacy is built on public trust. Honesty and ethical conduct are fundamental pillars that support patient safety, team collaboration, and legal compliance.
Transparency in Clinical Practice: If a consultation or interaction with a patient has not occurred, it must not be documented. In cases of ambiguity or miscommunication, pharmacists should clarify rather than assume or fabricate.
Accountability Matters Even Without Harm: Regulatory bodies may take serious action even if no direct harm has occurred. The potential for harm, especially in clinical environments, is sufficient to warrant sanctions.
Role of Documentation in Interdisciplinary Care: Pharmacists are often part of a broader clinical team. Inaccurate records not only mislead the next clinician but may also hinder patient outcomes across multiple touchpoints.
Proactive Reflection and Remediation: While this case did not escalate to suspension or removal, it illustrates the importance of immediate self-reflection and remedial action when professional standards are breached.

In conclusion, this case serves as a critical reminder for all pharmacy professionals about the weight of their documentation practices. It underscores the expectation that pharmacists act not just competently, but ethically, and with unwavering attention to the integrity of patient care.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.