Pharmacist Suspended for One Month After Dishonestly Returning Prescriptions to NHS Spine

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) Fitness to Practise Committee investigated a pharmacist after dishonestly returning prescriptions to NHS Spine despite knowing the medications had already been collected.

While working as a relief pharmacy manager at Peak Pharmacy, the pharmacist:

• On 16 and 30 May 2020, returned multiple prescriptions to NHS Spine, creating false records that the prescriptions had not been dispensed.
• Messaged a pharmacy colleague via Facebook, asking her to “keep this between ourselves”, indicating he was aware of the misconduct.
• Attempted to cover up his actions to prevent being reported to his employer or the GPhC.

The misconduct was discovered when a colleague noticed unusual activity involving NHS prescription tokens and reported it to the regional manager.

Findings:

The Fitness to Practise Committee found that the pharmacist’s actions amounted to serious misconduct, considering:

1. Dishonest Manipulation of NHS Prescription Records:
   • The pharmacist returned prescriptions that had already been dispensed, falsely indicating that the medications had not been collected.
   • This manipulated NHS processes and could have resulted in financial discrepancies.
2. Failure to Act with Integrity and Attempted Concealment:
   • Instead of acknowledging his actions, he attempted to cover up the misconduct by messaging a colleague and asking her to remain silent.
   • The committee noted that honesty and integrity are fundamental to pharmacy practice.
3. Workplace Pressures Contributed to the Misconduct:
   • The pharmacist admitted he was struggling with high performance targets and feared failing as a pharmacy manager.
   • However, the committee emphasized that professional responsibilities cannot be overridden by work pressures.
4. No Direct Patient Harm but Potential Systemic Risks:
   • The committee found no evidence that patients were harmed as a result of his actions.
   • However, the integrity of NHS records and pharmacy dispensing processes was compromised.

In the committee’s words:

“Honesty and integrity are fundamental tenets of the profession, and the registrant’s actions were unprofessional, irregular, and showed a lack of the professional judgment required of a registered pharmacist.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

The GPhC emphasized that the pharmacist’s conduct had undermined public confidence in the profession.

Key considerations included:

• Public trust in pharmacy professionals relies on accurate and honest record-keeping.
• The misconduct involved deliberate dishonesty rather than an accidental error.
• Even though there was no financial or patient harm, falsifying NHS prescription records is a serious breach of trust.

The committee acknowledged the pharmacist’s remorse, stating:

“The registrant has provided a full and unequivocal apology, taking full ownership of his misconduct and demonstrating insight into his failings.”

The committee ultimately ruled that a sanction was necessary to:

• Maintain public confidence in the profession.
• Send a clear message that falsifying NHS records will not be tolerated.
• Provide a deterrent for other pharmacy professionals.

Sanction:

The committee imposed a one-month suspension, considering:

• Aggravating Factors:
  • The pharmacist engaged in dishonesty within a pharmacy setting, affecting NHS prescription records.
  • He attempted to persuade a junior colleague to cover up his actions.
  • The misconduct involved multiple instances of dishonesty over a two-week period.
• Mitigating Factors:
  • He admitted the allegations early and expressed genuine remorse.
  • He had no prior disciplinary history.
  • He took immediate remedial steps after being caught, including seeking professional support.

The committee ruled that removal from the register was unnecessary, as:

• The pharmacist had genuine insight and had taken steps to ensure the misconduct would not happen again.
• There was a low risk of repetition, given his reflective account and decision to leave a high-pressure management role.
• A short suspension was sufficient to mark the seriousness of the dishonesty without permanently ending his career.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights critical lessons regarding honesty, record-keeping, and professional accountability.

1. Dishonesty in NHS Records is a Serious Offence:
   • Returning prescriptions to NHS Spine after dispensing medications is a serious breach of professional ethics.
   • Even if no patient is harmed, such misconduct damages trust in pharmacy practice.
2. Attempting to Cover Up Misconduct Worsens the Situation:
   • The pharmacist’s Facebook message to a colleague attempting to hide the misconduct was viewed as an aggravating factor.
   • Speaking up and taking accountability early is always the best course of action.
3. Workplace Pressures Are Not an Excuse for Dishonesty:
   • The pharmacist cited pressure to meet pharmacy targets as a reason for his actions.
   • However, the GPhC made it clear that professional standards cannot be compromised due to workplace demands.
4. Regulatory Sanctions Can Be Proportionate for First-Time Offenders:
   • The pharmacist avoided removal from the register due to his genuine remorse and proactive remediation.
   • A short suspension was imposed as a warning to others while allowing him to return to practice.
5. Pharmacists Must Act as Role Models for Integrity:
   • As professionals, pharmacists are expected to set high ethical standards.
   • Honesty and accountability are fundamental to maintaining public confidence in the profession.