Pharmacist Removed from Register Following Conviction for Theft and Forgery Involving Controlled Drugs

The registrant was employed in a senior NHS role conducting medication reviews. During this work, the registrant:

• Retained dihydrocodeine and other controlled medicines handed over for destruction.
• Forged 16 handwritten prescriptions and generated 43 electronic prescription requests for these drugs.
• Accessed clinical records to choose older patients exempt from prescription charges to avoid detection.
• Altered patient records and redirected nominated pharmacies to collect the forged prescriptions.

The total value of fraudulently obtained medication was approximately £785.45.

Following internal investigations and police involvement, the registrant was:

• Suspended from duty in September 2023
• Cooperated fully with investigations and admitted all wrongdoing
• Convicted of theft and forgery at Weymouth Magistrates’ Court in May 2024, receiving a 44-week suspended sentence, 250 hours unpaid work, and costs

Findings

The Committee found:

• The misconduct involved sustained and sophisticated dishonesty over nine months
• The registrant manipulated NHS systems, violated patient trust, and misused clinical data
• While no direct harm was reported, the risk of harm was real and substantial
• The registrant’s behaviour demonstrated planned deception and a clear breach of trust

A key quote from the determination stated:

“This was a breach of a high degree of trust… involving sustained dishonesty and falsification of records to obtain controlled drugs.”

The Committee acknowledged the registrant’s expressions of remorse and shame, professional testimonials, and personal insight, but emphasised:

• The registrant had previously faced GPhC sanctions and a criminal conviction for similar issues
• There remained a risk of repetition
• The registrant’s integrity could no longer be relied upon

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The registrant’s fitness to practise was found to be impaired, based on:

• Ongoing risk to the public
• Repeated breaches of trust
• Dishonesty that brought the profession into disrepute
• A pattern of behaviour incompatible with continued registration

The Committee concluded:

“The misconduct was extremely serious… and would be considered deplorable by fellow practitioners.”

Sanction

The Committee considered and rejected lesser sanctions:

• Warning – Inappropriate due to ongoing risk
• Conditions – Unworkable due to the registrant’s past record and severity of offences
• Suspension – Insufficient to uphold public confidence in light of the repeated misconduct

Instead, the Committee ordered removal from the register, stating:

“The seriousness of the matter is such that the registrant’s continued registration is incompatible with maintaining public confidence and professional standards.”

An interim suspension was imposed immediately to prevent the registrant from practising during the 28-day appeal period.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Dishonesty involving patient records and NHS systems is viewed as extremely serious – Even in the absence of patient harm, falsification of data and deception undermine public trust.
2. Prior disciplinary history magnifies regulatory consequences – Repeat misconduct, especially of the same nature, is likely to lead to removal.
3. Accessing patient data without consent is a breach of multiple ethical duties – Respecting privacy is fundamental, even when misconduct is linked to personal challenges.
4. Insight must be complete and matched with action – Apologies are not sufficient if risk of recurrence remains.
5. Removal is reserved for the most serious cases – Including those involving sustained dishonesty, abuse of trust, and breach of legal and professional obligations.

Conclusion

This case is a clear example of how repeat, calculated dishonesty—particularly when linked to controlled drugs and misuse of NHS systems—can lead to erasure from the pharmacy register. Despite cooperation, insight, and personal challenges, the GPhC concluded that the registrant’s actions fundamentally breached the trust placed in pharmacy professionals, and that removal was the only appropriate sanction to protect the public and uphold professional standards.