Pharmacist Suspended for Eight More Months Following Dishonesty in Prescription and Governance Matters

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) investigated the registrant following concerns about serious dishonesty and fraudulent activity in pharmacy governance.

Between 2019 and 2021, while employed at multiple pharmacies, the registrant:

• Forged a signature on an SLA between a pharmacy and an NHS trust without authorization.
• Created and used false prescriptions to justify orders of pharmaceutical products.
• Submitted fraudulent orders to pharmaceutical wholesalers, falsely claiming they were for genuine patient demand.
• Provided misleading information to an NHS trust regarding the use of medicines.
• Signed another pharmacist’s name on official documents without permission.
• Knowingly submitted false information to the GPhC during the investigation.

A GPhC hearing in March 2024 found the registrant guilty of dishonesty and misconduct, leading to a 12-month suspension. The March 2025 review hearing assessed whether the registrant had demonstrated sufficient remediation to return to practice.

Findings

The GPhC panel determined that the registrant’s conduct:

• Involved premeditated dishonesty over a sustained period, not a single lapse in judgment.
• Had financial motivations, as fraudulent orders increased business revenue.
• Involved deception at multiple levels, including NHS trusts, pharmaceutical suppliers, and regulators.
• Did not result in patient harm, but significantly undermined trust in the pharmacy profession.

A direct quote from the ruling underscored the seriousness of the misconduct:

“The registrant’s dishonesty was sophisticated, protracted, and repeated. Their actions not only breached public trust but also placed the integrity of pharmacy governance at risk.”

While the registrant submitted reflections and completed an ethics course, the panel found that:

• Their insight remained incomplete, as they focused on personal consequences rather than professional ethics.
• They had not appointed a formal mentor, despite being advised to do so in the previous hearing.
• They had returned to pharmaceutical wholesaling, raising concerns about potential financial motivations.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired, citing:

• Public protection concerns, as their governance failures showed a disregard for regulatory compliance.
• A lack of full remediation, as their explanations for past dishonesty were insufficient.
• Damage to public confidence, as the case involved fraudulent activity over multiple years.

Sanction

The Fitness to Practise Committee imposed an eight-month suspension with review, determining that:

• The registrant had made some progress in remediation but had not yet demonstrated full insight.
• A shorter suspension than the original 12-month period was appropriate, but further work was needed before reinstatement.
• A review hearing before reinstatement would ensure that the registrant had sufficiently addressed concerns.

Additionally, an interim suspension was imposed immediately, preventing the registrant from practising until the full suspension takes effect or an appeal is resolved.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Dishonesty has severe professional consequences – The registrant’s fraudulent documentation and false statements led to repeated suspensions.
2. Regulatory guidance must be followed – The GPhC advised mentorship and structured remediation, but failure to engage resulted in an extended suspension.
3. Returning to pharmacy work after misconduct requires full insight – The registrant’s focus on personal impact rather than professional ethics weakened their case for reinstatement.
4. Governance failures undermine the profession – Falsifying prescriptions, forging signatures, and misleading NHS trusts are taken extremely seriously.
5. Suspension is not automatic reinstatement – The GPhC will not reinstate pharmacists unless they fully address concerns and demonstrate professional accountability.

Conclusion

This case highlights the serious repercussions of dishonesty in pharmacy governance. While the registrant took some remedial steps, their failure to fully engage with GPhC recommendations resulted in an extended suspension. The eight-month suspension serves as a final opportunity for the registrant to demonstrate full remediation before potential removal from the register.