Pharmacist Cleared to Practise After Completing Remediation for Dishonesty Misconduct

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) investigated the registrant following allegations that they had misrepresented their work experience on both their CV and LinkedIn profile.

At the original hearing in February 2023, the panel found that:

• The registrant falsely claimed to have worked as a pharmacist at Colchester General Teaching Hospital from July 2010 to July 2011, despite not being registered at that time.
• The registrant misrepresented employment history at Lloyds Pharmacy, listing pharmacist employment from January 2008 to January 2011, despite not qualifying until August 2011.
• These misrepresentations were intentional and dishonest, aimed at securing employment opportunities.

The registrant was suspended for 12 months, with a review hearing scheduled to assess progress on remediation and insight.

Findings

At the March 2024 review hearing, the GPhC found that the registrant had:

• Demonstrated significant reflection on their past dishonesty.
• Completed training and counselling to improve professional ethics and decision-making.
• Submitted reflective statements acknowledging the impact of their actions on patient trust and the pharmacy profession.

While the committee found that dishonesty was a serious issue, they determined that it was remediable, and the registrant had taken appropriate steps to rebuild trust.

However, the registrant was out of practice for three years due to suspension and had not yet secured a new pharmacy role. As a result, the GPhC imposed a 12-month conditions of practice order, requiring the registrant to:

• Work under mentorship.
• Complete a Return to Practice Course before resuming employment.
• Regularly update the GPhC on progress.

GPhC Determination on Final Review

At the March 2025 review hearing, the panel found that:

• The registrant had not secured employment due to difficulty arranging mentorship, but had continued to engage with the GPhC process.
• The registrant had completed all required reflection, ethics training, and professional development.
• There was no remaining risk to public safety, as their dishonesty was historical and fully remediated.

A direct quote from the GPhC determination stated:

“The registrant has gained sufficient insight and taken full responsibility for their actions. The Committee is satisfied that there is no ongoing impairment and that the registrant is fit to return to practice.”

Outcome and Advice from the GPhC

The committee ruled that the registrant’s fitness to practise is no longer impaired, and the conditions order will lapse on 2 April 2025.

However, the panel strongly advised the registrant to:

• Complete the Return to Practice Course, as it will assist in rebuilding professional confidence.
• Continue engaging positively with the regulator to ensure a smooth transition back into employment.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Dishonesty in professional applications has serious consequences – Misrepresenting employment history led to a three-year regulatory process and suspension.
2. Regulatory bodies prioritise remediation over punishment – The GPhC recognised that insight, reflection, and corrective action were sufficient to allow return to practice.
3. Engaging with the fitness to practise process is essential – The registrant avoided further sanctions by demonstrating genuine reflection and improvement.
4. Returning to practice after suspension requires structured support – The registrant’s challenges in securing mentorship highlight the need for clear pathways back into employment.
5. Professional integrity is key to maintaining public trust – The case reinforces that transparency and honesty are fundamental in pharmacy practice.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of professional honesty and accountability in pharmacy. While the registrant initially faced serious consequences for dishonesty, their successful remediation and engagement with the GPhC enabled them to return to practice. This ruling serves as a reminder that fitness to practise concerns can be addressed through self-reflection, corrective actions, and a commitment to ethical standards.