Pharmacist Suspended for Theft and Dishonesty in Attempt to Use NHS Prescriptions for Personal Online Project

The registrant was a newly qualified pharmacist who had ambitions to create educational videos about pharmacy items, including inhalers and food supplements. He purchased a domain for a website and hoped to gain popularity through online tutorials.

To support this plan, the registrant:

• Took three prescriptions from the pharmacy where he worked, claiming they had been placed in a recycling bin.
• Handed them in at two separate pharmacies, hoping to obtain items (such as supplements and inhaler devices) for his video content.
• Stated he believed the items were not POMs and later claimed he would not collect the prescriptions.
• Disclosed patient names to his father in an attempt to recover the prescriptions after being confronted.
• Was later cautioned by police for theft and fraud.

The registrant admitted his wrongdoing at the police interview and cooperated throughout the investigation. He stated:

“Somehow I made an unconscious isolated wrong decision where my mind did not think of the consequences.”

Findings

The Committee found:

• The registrant intended to benefit personally by using NHS prescriptions to obtain items under false pretences.
• His actions were deliberate and premeditated, as he repeated them at two different branches.
• He failed to fully understand or appreciate the impact on patients whose prescriptions he had attempted to use.

While the registrant admitted his misconduct and had engaged in CPD and reflective learning, the Committee noted:

• His insight was incomplete—he focused on his shame but not fully on how his actions impacted patients and public trust.
• His claim that it was an “unconscious” act contradicted his planned, repeated actions.
• His CPD was very recent, despite the incident occurring three years prior.

The registrant stated:

“I wanted to become famous… I lacked knowledge on food supplements and thought I could help others.”

But the Committee found this did not justify the misuse of NHS resources and breach of trust.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired, as:

• He breached core professional standards around honesty, integrity, and confidentiality.
• His insight, while developing, was not yet complete.
• The conduct, if left unaddressed, would undermine public confidence in the profession.

They found:

“The registrant’s dishonesty was not a one-off ‘moment of madness’ but premeditated misconduct carried out across two locations.”

Sanction

The Committee considered and rejected the following:

• Warning – Insufficient given the seriousness of dishonesty.
• Conditions of practice – Not appropriate due to the behavioural nature of the misconduct.
• Erasure – Considered disproportionate given the registrant’s cooperation, insight, and no risk to patients.

Instead, the panel imposed a four-month suspension, stating:

“This will give the registrant time to reflect and demonstrate that his insight has deepened and become complete.”

A review hearing will be required before he can return to practice, at which he must demonstrate full insight and a clear understanding of the impact on patients and the profession.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Dishonesty in professional settings is a serious offence – Even where there is no financial gain or patient harm, exploiting systems for personal use breaches trust.
2. Insight must include understanding of consequences – Remorse focused solely on personal shame is not enough; reflection must consider impact on patients and public trust.
3. Repeated, premeditated actions elevate the seriousness – One error might be forgivable; multiple planned incidents are not.
4. Breach of confidentiality can occur even in casual conversations – Sharing patient names with family was a clear violation.
5. Professional standards apply at all times—even in pursuit of educational goals – Good intentions cannot justify dishonest actions.

Conclusion

This case shows that even without direct patient harm, dishonesty, confidentiality breaches, and misuse of NHS processes can result in suspension. The registrant’s ambition to educate the public was overshadowed by poor judgment and unethical behaviour. The four-month suspension is a strong reminder that pharmacy professionals are expected to uphold the highest standards—both in practice and personal initiatives.