Pharmacist Suspended Again Over Ongoing Fitness to Practise Concerns Linked to Cocaine Use

Date of Decision: November 26, 2020

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Attended work as a pharmacist while under the influence of cocaine.
Admitted cocaine use on multiple occasions.
Failed to cooperate with the GPhC’s health procedures, including refusing to take a drugs test.
Engaged with proceedings after nearly two-and-a-half years of disengagement, but failed to provide objective evidence of abstinence.

Outcome: Suspension extended for four months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 5 – Use professional judgement
Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner
Standard 8 – Speak up when things go wrong

Case Summary

The registrant attended work as the responsible pharmacist while under the influence of a Class A drug (cocaine) and admitted to using the drug on other occasions. He also:

Told colleagues that he had consumed cocaine.
Declined to take a drugs test when requested during the GPhC investigation.
Failed to provide evidence of abstinence or to engage meaningfully for over two years.

In the original hearing, the GPhC imposed an eight-month suspension, followed by an extension due to continued non-engagement. The Committee expressed serious concerns about the registrant’s insight and fitness to practise.

Current Review Hearing (November 2020)

At this third review hearing, the registrant attended and acknowledged his prior disengagement, stating:

“Some life choices work well and some do not… this was the worst thing that had happened to me.”

He expressed a desire to return to pharmacy work, preferably in a GP setting, and submitted CPD evidence. However, the Committee found:

No drug testing had been completed (urine or hair).
No GP report was provided, despite requests and the registrant’s promise to chase it.
No corroborating evidence supported his claim to be drug-free for two years.

He claimed he could not afford testing and had misunderstood who was responsible for arranging it. The GPhC later confirmed they would cover the costs.

Despite recent engagement, the Committee emphasised:

“There is no current objective evidence before the Committee that the Registrant has not used Class A drugs in the last two years.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee concluded that:

The registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired due to the lack of objective assurance that he is no longer misusing drugs.
The risk to public safety and confidence would be too great without such evidence.
His misconduct was serious: “Attending work as a Pharmacist whilst under the influence of a Class A drug strikes at the heart of public safety and professional integrity.”

Sanction

The panel imposed a further suspension for four months, finding it to be:

Proportionate, giving time to obtain hair sample results or other objective tests.
Protective, as the registrant could not work while suspended.
A final chance before stronger sanctions might be considered.

“Four months would be a sufficient period for the Registrant to obtain meaningful evidence for the future reviewing Committee.”

They rejected erasure at this point, as the registrant had shown some engagement and there was still a possibility of remediation.

The Committee recommended hair testing (covering a 90-day period) as the most appropriate evidence of abstinence.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Using Class A drugs while practising is a grave breach—especially when done during working hours.
Refusing to engage with health assessments undermines professional obligations and patient safety.
Insight must be supported by action, such as medical evidence and independent testing.
Late engagement is better than none, but timing impacts credibility and sanctions.
Regulatory support exists for rehabilitation, but registrants must meet their responsibilities.

Conclusion

This case highlights that substance misuse combined with regulatory non-compliance can lead to extended suspensions and potentially erasure. While the registrant began to re-engage, the absence of objective proof of abstinence meant the GPhC could not safely allow him to return to practice. The four-month suspension extension serves as a final opportunity to provide such evidence before stronger measures may be imposed.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.