Pharmacist Suspended for Dishonesty in CV and LinkedIn Profile

Date of Decision: February 28, 2023

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

  • On 3 September 2020, the registrant allegedly claimed at an interview that they had worked on placement at Colchester General Teaching Hospital from July 2010 to July 2011.
  • The registrant stated on their CV that they had worked at that hospital from July 2010 to July 2011.
  • The CV statement was dishonest because the registrant knew they had not been employed by the hospital during that period and intended to secure bank shifts at Oaks Hospital by misrepresenting their previous hospital experience.
  • The registrant’s LinkedIn profile claimed that they had worked as a pharmacist at Lloyds Pharmacy from January 2008 to January 2011.
  • The LinkedIn claim was dishonest because the registrant knew they had not been employed as a pharmacist during that period and had not registered as a pharmacist until 1 August 2011.

Outcome: Suspension for 12 months, with a review

GPhC Standards Breached:

  • Standard 6: Behave in a professional manner, including being trustworthy and acting with honesty and integrity.

Case Summary

Allegations

This case concerned dishonest statements about professional experience in a pharmacist’s CV and LinkedIn profile. Although there was no evidence of actual patient harm, the committee found that misrepresenting hospital experience could expose patients to risk if an employer relied on that information when recruiting or deciding how much training to provide.

The principal hearing took place remotely on 27–28 February 2023. The registrant did not attend and was not represented. In earlier correspondence, the registrant had said that their health had deteriorated, that they no longer worked in the sector, and that they did not wish to participate further in the fitness to practise process. They expressly asked for the hearing to proceed without them or representation.

Continue Reading the Full Case

This case was published more than two weeks ago. A premium subscription is required to read the complete case summary.

  • Full allegations considered by the GPhC/PSNI
  • Panel findings and reasoning
  • Outcome of the investigation
  • Sanctions considered and imposed on the Pharmacist
  • Key professional learning points

Become a Premium Subscriber or Log In

Original Case Document

The original determination document is available to registered users.

Register for Free or Log In

Leave a Reply