Plagiarism in Foundation Training: NI Pharmacist Dishonesty After Submitting a Copied Care Plan
Date of Decision: January 19, 2021
Registrant's Role: Pharmacist
Allegations:
- In and around January 2019, the registrant submitted a pharmaceutical care plan to a practice supervisor as part of the NICPLD Foundation Programme for Pharmacists, which was found to contain content similar to or copied from another pharmacist’s former Foundation Programme care plan.
- The registrant’s actions were dishonest in that they knew (or must have known) the care plan was not wholly their own work, and by submitting it for assessment they were claiming it was wholly their own work.
Outcome: A Conditions Order was imposed for 12 months
GPhC Standards Breached:
- Standard 1.2.5 – Be open and honest with patients, service users, colleagues, and employers when something goes wrong.
- Principle 3 – Act with professionalism and integrity at all times.
- Standard 3.1 – Act with honesty and integrity at all times.
- Standard 3.1.1 – Adhere to accepted and acceptable standards of personal and professional conduct at all times both inside and outside the work environment.
- Standard 3.1.2 – Maintain public trust and confidence in your profession by acting with honesty and integrity in your dealings with others. This applies to your professional, business and educational activities.
- Standard 3.1.7 – Make sure that any documents you complete or sign are not false or misleading, or contain false or misleading information. Take all steps that are reasonably necessary to ensure that recorded information is correct and complete. Do not omit relevant information.
Case Summary
This case concerns a pharmacist (referred to here as “the registrant”) who admitted dishonest plagiarism in the context of a professional development programme portfolio—specifically, the NICPLD Foundation Programme for Pharmacists. Although the underlying incident involved an educational submission rather than a dispensing or clinical error, the Statutory Committee treated it as a serious integrity matter with clear public interest implications for trust in pharmacists and confidence in the profession.
Allegations
The registrant was enrolled on the NICPLD Foundation Programme and, as part of the programme requirements, had to submit a portfolio containing 12 pharmaceutical care plans. These were initially marked by a practice supervisor or clinical pharmacist and then checked by an educational supervisor for quality criteria such as validity and authenticity prior to final submission for formal assessment.
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