Pharmacist Suspended for Self-Medicating with Diazepam and Taking Ozempic Without Prescription Returns to Unrestricted Practice

Date of Decision: July 28, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Removed Ozempic from the pharmacy without a valid prescription or payment.
Took diazepam from pharmacy stock for personal use without a prescription or payment.
Self-medicated with diazepam during work hours and on pharmacy premises on at least two occasions.
Attended work while unfit, affecting her ability to concentrate and communicate.
Acted dishonestly in obtaining medication without payment or authorisation.

Outcome: No impairment currently found. The registrant may return to unrestricted practice.

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Provide person-centred care
Standard 2 – Work in partnership with people
Standard 3 – Communicate effectively
Standard 6 – Behave professionally
Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations

In May 2023, the registrant, then employed as a pharmacist at Pickfords Pharmacy in Doncaster, was found to have committed a series of serious misconducts. These included removing Ozempic—a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist used primarily for type 2 diabetes and weight management—without a valid prescription or payment. Additionally, she took diazepam (a Schedule IV controlled drug) from the pharmacy stock for personal use, self-medicating during work hours and while on the pharmacy premises.

There were also serious concerns regarding her fitness to work at the time. Colleagues reported erratic behaviour: slurred speech, mood swings, poor concentration, and physical signs such as trembling. These episodes culminated in a confrontation where she threw a medication bag at a colleague. Her actions were compounded by dishonesty, as she knowingly took medications without proper authorisation or payment.

Findings

At the Principal Hearing in January 2025, the registrant admitted all allegations, which were found proved. The Fitness to Practise Committee identified breaches of professional standards under Rule 5(2) due to the risks posed to patient safety, damage to the profession’s reputation, and the registrant’s dishonesty. While the registrant demonstrated some insight into the connection between her actions and her health condition, concerns remained regarding her preparedness to return to pharmacy practice.

The Committee concluded her behaviour—though serious and involving dishonesty—stemmed from a period of immense personal and professional turmoil, exacerbated by health issues. The panel acknowledged that while her dishonest conduct was concerning, it did not stem from deep-seated attitudinal issues. Instead, her misconduct was seen as a consequence of being unwell and under severe stress.

“The Registrant clearly had some understanding of her health issues and the possible impact on her ability to work as a pharmacist but she did not address her stress and stop working when she should have done.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment

By the time of the review hearing on 28 July 2025, the registrant’s circumstances had improved significantly. She demonstrated sincere insight, outlining how she would recognise early signs of stress or relapse and had established a support system involving experienced pharmacists and colleagues. She presented a structured plan for returning to practice, including working one day per week in a low-stress environment, keeping a reflective journal, and continuing CPD activities.

The Committee was particularly reassured by her proactive efforts: sending an apology letter to her former colleagues, maintaining stability in a non-pharmacy job, and avoiding any pressure to return to full-time pharmacy work. She had also refused positions in pharmacies she found unsuitable, showing a commitment to safe practice.

Ultimately, the Committee was convinced that she no longer posed a risk to patients, had adequately addressed previous shortcomings, and no longer met the threshold for impairment. Consequently, her six-month suspension was allowed to expire, allowing her to return to unrestricted practice from 16 August 2025.

Sanction

At the original hearing, the registrant received a six-month suspension. The Committee had made it clear that future restoration would depend on her demonstrating further insight and planning for a safe return to practice.

At the July 2025 review, finding that she had met these expectations, the Committee chose not to extend the suspension or impose conditions. No further order was made, and the registrant is now eligible to practise without restriction.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Health and fitness to practise are inseparable: Pharmacy professionals must recognise when personal health conditions impact their ability to practise safely. Continued work while unfit can compromise patient safety and professional integrity.
Controlled drugs demand rigorous compliance: Removing or self-administering controlled medication without authorisation—regardless of intent—is a serious breach of professional standards.
Dishonesty is a major threshold issue: While dishonesty is typically hard to remediate, the GPhC will consider contextual and mitigating factors when evaluating whether it stems from an isolated lapse or a deeper attitudinal problem.
Insight and reflection are critical to remediation: The registrant’s honest reflections, improved health management, and a gradual re-entry plan were crucial in satisfying the Committee that she no longer posed a risk to patients or the public.
Support networks and boundaries matter: The registrant’s creation of a structured support system and her commitment to avoid high-pressure environments demonstrate best practices for managing return to work following a period of professional difficulty.

This case underscores the importance of acknowledging vulnerability, seeking help early, and committing to professional recovery with sincerity and accountability.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.