Pharmacist Removed from Register Following Caution for Offering to Supply Controlled Drugs

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) investigated the registrant following a police investigation into allegations that they had offered to supply controlled drugs to a vulnerable individual with a known dependency on prescription medication.

The matter was reported to Dorset Police on 1 March 2021, and evidence obtained from mobile phone messages indicated that the registrant had offered to supply Class C drugs, including:

• Temazepam
• Zolpidem
• Zopiclone
• Midazolam

Following a police interview under caution, the registrant accepted a conditional caution on 24 May 2022 for the offence of offering to supply controlled drugs under Section 4(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Findings

The GPhC panel determined that:

• The registrant’s actions represented a serious abuse of professional trust, as they offered controlled drugs to a vulnerable individual.
• The registrant failed to prioritise patient safety, exposing the individual to potential overdose risk.
• There was no evidence of remediation, insight, or remorse, despite the seriousness of the allegations.
• The registrant did not engage with the GPhC investigation, ignoring multiple notices regarding the hearing.

A direct quote from the committee’s determination emphasized the gravity of the case:

“The registrant demonstrated a complete disregard for the principles of patient safety and professional accountability. Their actions undermine public confidence in the pharmacy profession.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The committee ruled that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired, citing:

• Public protection concerns, as the registrant’s actions posed a direct risk to a vulnerable person.
• Breach of professional standards, as pharmacists must never facilitate access to controlled drugs outside of legal and clinical frameworks.
• Lack of engagement, with no evidence that the registrant had taken steps to address their misconduct or demonstrate remediation.

Sanction

The Fitness to Practise Committee imposed the most severe sanction—removal from the GPhC register—determining that:

• The registrant’s actions were fundamentally incompatible with being a pharmacist.
• Suspension or conditions would be insufficient given the lack of insight and engagement.
• The registrant’s behaviour had seriously undermined public confidence in the profession.

Additionally, an interim suspension was imposed immediately, preventing the registrant from practising until the removal order formally takes effect or any appeal is concluded.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Offering to supply controlled drugs outside of legal frameworks is a serious offence – This case demonstrates that even a single offer of supply can result in permanent removal from the register.
2. Engagement with the regulatory process is crucial – The registrant’s failure to participate in the GPhC proceedings contributed to their removal.
3. Pharmacists must protect vulnerable individuals – Supplying medication without clinical oversight can lead to harm and regulatory action.
4. Regulatory bodies prioritise public confidence – Any misconduct involving controlled drugs is treated with zero tolerance.
5. Remediation is key in fitness to practise cases – Had the registrant shown insight, remorse, and a commitment to improvement, a less severe sanction may have been considered.

Conclusion

This case serves as a stark warning to pharmacy professionals about the serious consequences of improper supply of controlled drugs. The removal of the registrant from the GPhC register underscores the importance of upholding professional integrity, engaging with regulatory processes, and prioritising patient safety at all times.