Pharmacist Suspended for Two Months for Checking CD Prescriptions via WhatsApp and Inaccurate RP Log Entries

While serving as the Superintendent Pharmacist at a family-run 100-hour pharmacy, the registrant was found to have:

• Permitted remote checking of medicines via WhatsApp, including Controlled Drugs like methadone and buprenorphine, rather than conducting final checks in person.
• Allowed dispensing of methadone to patients when neither he nor any other pharmacist was present.
• Allowed pharmacy staff to sign the RP log using his credentials, creating a misleading impression of pharmacist presence.

These unsafe practices persisted for several months, only ending after GPhC inspectors visited the pharmacy.

Findings

The panel accepted the registrant’s admissions for most of the allegations and found that:

• He routinely delegated final checks to remote methods, even for Controlled Drugs.
• He failed to record his absences in the RP log, and staff frequently logged him in without his presence.
• He had been habitually late, yet allowed staff to send him remote check requests.
• He accepted this was the “worst decision of his career” and took responsibility for poor leadership and delegation.

The panel was particularly alarmed that:

“On multiple occasions, including for methadone and buprenorphine, the registrant responded ‘Fine’ to WhatsApp messages without being on-site, creating a serious risk to patient safety.”

They determined the registrant acted without integrity, particularly given his senior role, and that the pharmacy’s unsafe practices could have affected many patients.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

• The panel found that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired.
• Although he had shown genuine remorse, insight, and remediation, a finding of impairment was necessary to uphold public confidence and professional standards.
• While there was low risk of repetition, the seriousness of his misconduct—particularly regarding Controlled Drugs and misleading records—required regulatory action.

Sanction

The panel imposed a two-month suspension, stating that:

• A warning or conditions would not send a strong enough message to the public or profession.
• Suspension was necessary to mark the seriousness of the misconduct and affirm public trust in the regulatory process.

However, they did not impose an interim suspension, noting:

“The public interest is served by the two-month suspension itself. There was no need to restrict the registrant further during the 28-day appeal window, especially during the Covid-19 crisis.”

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Remote final checks are not acceptable, especially for Controlled Drugs—they compromise safety and are professionally inappropriate.
2. RP logs must be accurate—delegating log-ins or omitting absences misleads inspectors and compromises legal accountability.
3. Superintendent Pharmacists must uphold the highest standards—their actions set the tone for the entire team.
4. Workplace stress is not an excuse for unsafe practices—professional support and delegation must be managed within safe boundaries.
5. Early remediation and insight are valued, but do not negate the need for formal sanctions in serious cases.

Conclusion

This case illustrates the critical role of on-site, accountable pharmacist oversight—especially when dealing with Controlled Drugs. While the registrant showed regret and remediation, the GPhC rightly concluded that his past conduct required a clear regulatory message. The two-month suspension upholds professional standards and public confidence, especially concerning integrity, record-keeping, and safe dispensing.