Cocaine Use While Acting as Responsible Pharmacist Leads to Suspension
Date of Decision: August 22, 2018
Registrant's Role: Pharmacist
Allegations:
- Attended work on 12 March 2017 as the Responsible Pharmacist while unfit and/or under the influence of cocaine.
- Admitted to two colleagues on separate occasions on the same day that he had consumed cocaine.
- Used cocaine on one or more occasions between January 2017 and 12 March 2017, other than the day mentioned in the first allegation.
- Failed to cooperate with the GPhC’s investigation between 27 October 2017 and 16 January 2018 by refusing to undergo a drug test.
Outcome: Suspension from the register for 8 months, with an immediate interim suspension order.
GPhC Standards Breached:
- Standard 1.1 – You must make sure the services you provide are safe and of acceptable quality.
- Standard 6 – You must behave in a way that justifies the trust the public places in you and the pharmacy profession.
- Standard 6.5 – You must meet accepted standards of personal and professional conduct.
- Standard 7.1 – You must practise only if you are 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.
- Standard 6 (2017) – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner.
- Standard 8 (2017) – Pharmacy professionals must speak up when they have concerns or when things go wrong.
Case Summary
Allegations
This case revolves around a pharmacist who attended work on 12 March 2017 as the designated Responsible Pharmacist while under the influence of cocaine. During his shift, colleagues noticed he was agitated, complaining of palpitations and shortness of breath, and eventually lay down on the dispensary floor. The registrant admitted to two colleagues that he had consumed cocaine, prompting them to call an ambulance. The situation was so serious that he was suspended from duty that day.
Further allegations emerged that the registrant had used cocaine on other occasions between January and March 2017. Evidence included verbal admissions and social media exchanges with a colleague, although some of this evidence was ultimately ruled inadmissible due to how it was obtained.
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