Cocaine Use and Fitness to Practise: Pharmacist Suspended Again in Second Review Hearing

Date of Decision: May 7, 2020

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Attended work as a Responsible Pharmacist while unfit and/or under the influence of cocaine
Admitted to having consumed cocaine to colleagues
Historical use of cocaine on other occasions between January 2017 and the date in question
Failed to cooperate with the GPhC investigation by refusing drug tests

Outcome: Suspension extended for 6 months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1.1 – You must make sure the services you provide are safe and of an acceptable quality
Standard 6 – Patients and the public put their trust in pharmacy professionals. You must behave in a way that justifies this trust and maintains the reputation of your profession
Standard 6.5 – You must meet acceptable standards of personal and professional conduct
Standard 7.1 – You must practise only if fit to do so
Standard 7.8 – You must make sure that your actions do not… present a risk to patient care or public safety

Case Summary

Allegations

This case concerns a pharmacist who attended work as a Responsible Pharmacist while under the influence of cocaine. The incident occurred on a Sunday when the registrant arrived 15 minutes late and reported feeling unwell due to having attended a party the previous night. Observations from colleagues—a Pharmacy Technician and a Pharmacy Advisor—described erratic and concerning behaviour, including agitation, rapid heartbeat, difficulty breathing, and eventual incapacitation to the point of lying on the pharmacy floor. He admitted to colleagues that he had taken cocaine, claiming he had been using it “solidly” for three days without sleep.

The pharmacy was forced to close temporarily to await a replacement pharmacist. Subsequent reports confirmed that the registrant had previously admitted to cocaine use at a New Year’s Eve party and had been using the drug almost daily since then. These events prompted a GPhC investigation.

The registrant initially engaged with the investigation but later disengaged completely. He refused drug tests, declined to cooperate with health assessments, and communicated a desire to be left alone, going as far as to accuse the GPhC of harassment.

Findings

In the initial 2018 Principal Hearing, the Fitness to Practise Committee found all factual allegations to be proven. The panel concluded that the registrant had engaged in serious professional misconduct by attending work while under the influence of a Class A drug and by his prolonged use of cocaine. The behaviour was deemed “deplorable” by the panel.

“The Registrant’s actions would be regarded as deplorable by the public and by fellow professionals. He was regularly using a Class A drug and used it to such an extent that it adversely affected his ability to carry out his functions as a Responsible Pharmacist.”

Although he had failed to cooperate with the investigation, the panel did not find this specific failure alone to meet the misconduct threshold, as he had initially engaged with the process.

His fitness to practise was found to be impaired based on the ongoing risk to public safety, the reputational damage to the profession, and the lack of insight or remediation. A suspension of eight months was imposed, with a direction for review.

At the first review in May 2019, the registrant remained disengaged, provided no new evidence of progress, and did not attend the hearing. The suspension was extended for 12 months.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

At this second review, held in May 2020 via remote video due to COVID-19, the registrant attended for the first time since the process began. He was unrepresented and did not submit any documentation or test results. Nonetheless, he participated in the hearing and made oral submissions, admitting he did not yet have evidence of abstinence or updated clinical skills.

The panel acknowledged his renewed engagement but emphasised that it came after more than two years of near-total disengagement. They found his fitness to practise remained impaired due to:

Lack of independent, corroborative evidence of drug abstinence
No formal reflective statement or professional development
Continued risk to public safety and professional standards

“His engagement today, positive as it is, can only be regarded as a start after nearly two-and-a-half years of, for all practical purposes, disengagement.”

The panel concluded that the registrant could not be safely returned to unrestricted practice without further assurance.

Sanction

The panel ruled that the suspension should be extended for an additional six months. They found that neither taking no action nor imposing conditions of practice would protect the public. The registrant’s lack of proven abstinence and the impracticality of supervision in the workplace precluded a conditional return. A striking-off order was deemed disproportionate at this time, given the registrant’s renewed willingness to engage.

The registrant was advised to submit the following before the next review:

Evidence of sustained abstinence (ideally hair testing and repeated testing over time)
A GP report
A detailed reflective statement
References from employment, if applicable
Evidence of updated clinical knowledge and skills

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Substance Use and Fitness to Practise: Using illegal substances—especially when they impair professional performance—poses a severe risk to public safety and undermines trust in the profession. Fitness to practise panels will take these matters extremely seriously.
Importance of Insight and Remediation: Demonstrating a genuine understanding of how one’s behaviour affects patients, colleagues, and the profession is critical. Remediation must be proactive, sustained, and supported by evidence.
Engagement with the Regulator: Disengagement from the GPhC process reflects poorly on a professional’s commitment to standards. Full participation, timely communication, and cooperation with required assessments are essential.
Consequences of Attending Work While Impaired: Pharmacists must not attend work under the influence of any substances that impair judgment or function. Doing so risks patient safety and can lead to severe regulatory action.
Practical Steps Toward Rehabilitation: The case highlights the importance of submitting regular drug tests, attending CPD events, obtaining relevant professional references, and preparing reflective accounts to demonstrate readiness to return to practice.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of personal accountability, the high standards expected of pharmacy professionals, and the structured path to rehabilitation following misconduct.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.