GPhC Suspends Pharmacy Technician for 3 Months for Plagiarism and Falsely Declaring CPPE Portfolio as Their Own
Date of Decision: August 19, 2026
Registrant's Role: Pharmacy technician
Allegations:
- Between approximately 30 June 2024 and 31 July 2024, the registrant submitted assessments to the Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education (CPPE) which contained work belonging to, and/or copied from, another learner (“Colleague A”). The material included: Medicines Related Consultation Assessment Tool (MR-CAT) forms dated 18 January 2024; Resubmitted MR-CAT forms dated 18 January 2024; A Clinical Examination and Procedural Skills Assessment Record (CEPSAR) form dated 29 August 2023; An undated CEPSAR case study; A CEPSAR reflective essay dated 8 January 2024; A CEPSAR reflective essay dated 24 June 2024; A Case-based Discussion assessment form dated 23 May 2017; An undated Quality Improvement Project abstract; An undated Quality Improvement Project slideshow; An undated record of a peer discussion and case-study reflection.
- On or around 10 July 2024, the registrant submitted a Statement of Assessment and Progression declaring that the entries in the Canvas e-portfolio were “an honest and accurate record of the impact of my role in primary care”, despite knowing or being expected to know that this declaration was incorrect.
- The conduct in allegations 1 and/or 2 amounted to a lack of integrity and/or dishonesty.
Outcome: Suspension from the GPhC register for 3 months
GPhC Standards Breached:
- Standard 4 – Pharmacy professionals must maintain, develop and use their professional knowledge and skills.
- Standard 5 – Pharmacy professionals must use their professional judgement.
- Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner.
- Standard 8 – Pharmacy professionals must speak up when they have concerns or when things go wrong.
- Standard 9 – Pharmacy professionals must demonstrate leadership.
Case Summary
Allegations
This case concerned serious academic and professional misconduct arising from the registrant’s participation in the Centre for Pharmacy Postgraduate Education Primary Care Pharmacy Education Pathway (PCPEP). The pathway was intended to develop and demonstrate the registrant’s competence in primary care through structured learning, workplace assessments, clinical observations, reflective exercises and quality-improvement work.
The concerns emerged when the registrant’s CPPE Education Supervisor examined the e-portfolio and identified discrepancies in workplace-based assessment documents. In particular, MR-CAT documentation uploaded by the registrant appeared to contain feedback relating to another learner. Although the registrant’s name appeared at the top of some documents, the underlying comments referred to Colleague A.
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 Pharmacy technician
- 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