Pharmacist Issued Formal Warning for Dishonesty Regarding Accreditation for MUR and NMS Services

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated a pharmacist after she was found to have falsely declared her accreditation for conducting Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) and New Medicine Services (NMS) while working as a locum pharmacist for Lloyds Pharmacy.

On 21 August 2018, while registering on Venloc (a locum workforce management platform), she:

1. Declared that she was accredited to provide MUR and NMS services, despite not having completed the necessary training.
2. Accepted locum work based on these false declarations.

By October 2018, while working at Lloyds Pharmacy, her lack of accreditation was discovered when:

• She told a colleague she could not perform MURs.
• This led to a concern being raised with the area manager.
• She was then challenged in a phone call with the area manager on 12 October 2018, where she falsely stated that she had completed accreditation on 11 October 2018.
• Later that day, she emailed Venloc, asking them to correct the accreditation status, claiming she had made a mistake, though she knew the original declaration had been deliberate.

The GPhC initiated an investigation after Lloyds Pharmacy raised concerns about her conduct.

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee found that the pharmacist’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct, considering:

1. False Declaration on Venloc to Secure Employment:
   • The pharmacist knowingly provided false information about her MUR and NMS accreditation.
   • This misrepresentation allowed her to obtain work she was not fully qualified for.
2. Further Dishonesty When Challenged:
   • When questioned by the area manager on 12 October 2018, she claimed she had completed accreditation the previous day, which was untrue.
   • She later attempted to downplay the dishonesty by suggesting it was a simple error, when in fact, it was a deliberate misrepresentation.
3. Admissions and Insight into Dishonesty:
   • During the GPhC hearing, the pharmacist admitted:“I regret that I have dishonestly filled my Venloc profile.”
   • She explained that she panicked when confronted and reacted dishonestly due to fear of professional consequences.
4. Professional Integrity and Public Trust at Stake:
   • The Committee emphasized that pharmacists must uphold integrity, as patients and employers rely on their honesty.
   • The dishonesty could have impacted patient care if she had attempted to provide services without proper accreditation.
5. Positive Mitigating Factors:
   • She never actually attempted to provide MUR or NMS services while unaccredited.
   • She showed genuine remorse and insight into her actions.
   • Her current employer supported her, stating she had demonstrated professionalism and competence in her recent roles.

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

The GPhC ruled that the pharmacist’s fitness to practise was not impaired, citing:

• The dishonesty, though serious, was at the lower end of the spectrum.
• She had demonstrated significant insight and remediation.
• There was no risk to public safety, as she never actually performed services for which she was unqualified.

The Committee noted:

“Although the Registrant’s actions were dishonest, the misconduct was not so severe that it requires a finding of impairment. However, the dishonesty must be marked by a formal warning.”

Sanction:

The committee issued a formal warning, considering:

• Aggravating Factors:
  • Providing false information on a professional registration system.
  • Attempting to cover up dishonesty when confronted.
• Mitigating Factors:
  • Demonstrated remorse and insight into her actions.
  • Did not attempt to carry out services for which she was unqualified.
  • Received strong professional references attesting to her integrity since the incident.

The Committee emphasized:

“A pharmacist’s word must be trusted without question. Future dishonesty will likely result in more severe sanctions.”

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights critical lessons regarding professional integrity, honesty in professional declarations, and ethical conduct.

1. Honesty on Professional Documents is Crucial:
   • Providing false information on job applications, accreditation forms, or regulatory documents is a serious offence.
   • Even if the intention is to secure work, dishonesty damages trust in pharmacy professionals.
2. Dishonesty, Even at a Low Level, Can Result in Sanctions:
   • The pharmacist received a formal warning despite demonstrating remorse and insight.
   • More severe dishonesty cases can lead to suspension or removal from the register.
3. Being Challenged on Dishonesty Can Escalate the Issue:
   • When confronted, the pharmacist attempted to justify the false declaration rather than immediately admitting the mistake.
   • Attempting to cover up dishonesty often worsens regulatory outcomes.
4. Pharmacists Must Uphold Public and Professional Trust:
   • The Committee emphasized that honesty is a fundamental principle of the profession.
   • Patients, employers, and regulatory bodies rely on pharmacists to provide truthful information at all times.
5. Regulatory Bodies Consider Insight and Remediation:
   • The Committee chose not to impose a suspension because the pharmacist demonstrated sufficient insight and remediation.
   • Future dishonesty, however, would likely lead to more severe sanctions.

Conclusion:

While the pharmacist’s dishonesty was serious enough to warrant regulatory action, it was not so severe as to warrant impairment or suspension.

This case reinforces the expectation that pharmacy professionals must always act with integrity—and that even minor dishonesty can lead to formal warnings that remain on record.