Pharmacist Suspended for Two Months After Falsifying Staff Training Records

The registrant, under significant stress following a “deep dive audit,” admitted to:

• Falsifying SOP signatures for colleagues to show they had completed required training when they had not.
• Backdating the fabricated signatures to mislead about the timing of staff training compliance.
• Failing to admit the misconduct at the first opportunity during the internal disciplinary process, only confessing weeks later by email.

The fabricated SOPs related to critical areas such as:

• Methotrexate
• Lithium
• Anticoagulants

These medicines require careful monitoring due to their narrow therapeutic index, and false assurances of staff training posed a patient safety risk.

The registrant fully admitted to the misconduct but argued that she was not currently impaired.

---

Findings

The Committee found:

• The misconduct constituted serious dishonesty, breaching multiple GPhC standards.
• By falsifying training records, the registrant put patients and colleagues at risk, misled the public, and brought the profession into disrepute.
• The falsifications were not a spontaneous mistake but involved deliberate fabrication and backdating.

A key passage from the determination stated:

“The dishonesty was serious. It had the potential to mislead about staff competence and to place patients at risk.”

Although no direct patient harm was identified, the potential for harm was substantial.

---

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The Committee determined that:

• The registrant’s misconduct engaged all four limbs of regulatory concern: risk to patients, damage to public trust, breach of professional principles, and questionable integrity.
• The misconduct, though serious, was an isolated incident in an otherwise 28-year unblemished career.
• The registrant had demonstrated significant insight, completed extensive remediation, and developed new coping strategies to manage workplace stress.
• Testimonials described her as a competent and trustworthy pharmacist in her current locum work.

Despite these positive factors, the Committee concluded that a finding of current impairment was necessary to maintain public confidence and professional standards.

---

Sanction

The Committee considered all options:

• Warning – Insufficient due to the seriousness of dishonesty.
• Conditions – Not workable because the misconduct related to behaviour, not clinical skills.
• Suspension – Appropriate and proportionate given the need to uphold standards.

The Committee imposed a two-month suspension, finding:

“Suspension is necessary to mark the seriousness of the misconduct and to uphold public confidence in the pharmacy profession.”

They explicitly ruled out erasure, stating that the misconduct, while serious, was an isolated aberration rather than evidence of ongoing dishonesty.

No review hearing was required after the suspension ended.

---

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Dishonesty involving regulatory compliance (such as SOPs) is treated as a serious breach – even if no direct harm occurs.
2. Stress is not an excuse for falsifying records – Professionals must seek support rather than compromise integrity.
3. Swift and full admission is crucial – Delay in confessing can aggravate misconduct findings.
4. Insight, remediation, and evidence of safe practice are critical for leniency – Without these, harsher sanctions would likely result.
5. Public confidence in the profession depends on transparency and trustworthiness—even “paperwork dishonesty” undermines that trust.

---

Conclusion

This case highlights that even a single act of dishonesty involving critical patient safety records can result in significant regulatory sanctions. The GPhC’s decision to impose a two-month suspension without further review reflects a careful balancing of the registrant’s genuine remorse and successful remediation efforts against the need to uphold professional standards and maintain public trust.