Deception Over Diploma and Undisclosed Convictions: 8-Month Suspension for Deputy Aseptic Services Pharmacist
Date of Decision: May 15, 2018
Registrant's Role: Pharmacist
Allegations:
- Dishonesty in misleading employer about sitting a diploma examination required for job role.
- Failure to complete required coursework and falsely implying exam completion.
- Dishonest non-disclosure of two criminal convictions (driving without insurance and MoT) to the GPhC within the required timeframe and during renewal.
- Sustained dishonesty towards the Trust and the regulator.
Outcome: Suspension from the Register for 8 months
GPhC Standards Breached:
- Standard 5.2 – Maintain and improve the quality of your practice by keeping your knowledge and skills up to date.
- Standard 6.1 – Act with honesty and integrity to maintain public trust and confidence in the profession.
- Standard 6.2 – Use professional judgement in the interests of patients and the public.
- Standard 6.4 – Declare any personal or professional interests and manage these professionally.
- Standard 6.5 – Be honest and trustworthy.
- Standard 6.6 – Uphold the reputation of the profession at all times.
- Standard 6.9 – Ensure your conduct justifies the trust the public places in you and the profession.
Case Summary
Allegations
This case revolves around a pharmacist who was appointed as Deputy Aseptic Services Pharmacist by an NHS Trust, a position contingent upon holding a Clinical Pharmacy Diploma. At the time of appointment, the registrant only held a Clinical Certificate and agreed to pursue the diploma while in post. The registrant enrolled in a University distance-learning program, agreeing to complete the diploma in her own time and at her own expense.
The course required passing multiple modules and sitting a written examination. However, by mid-2016, the registrant had failed to complete necessary coursework and was told she would not be eligible to sit the exam scheduled for 15 June 2016. Despite being informed of this, and taking annual leave under the pretence of attending the exam, the registrant misled colleagues by stating that she had taken the exam and expressing uncertainty over her performance, thus falsely suggesting participation.
Continue Reading the Full Case
Create a free account or log in to access the complete case summary.
- Full allegations considered by the GPhC
- Panel findings and reasoning
- Outcome of the investigation
- Sanctions considered and imposed on the Pharmacist
- Key professional learning points
Original Case Document
View the Full Determination Document
The original determination transcript is available to registered users.
- Download the official GPhC determination
- Full hearing transcript
- Detailed findings of fact
- Sanction reasoning
- Details of the pharmacy professionals involved