Pharmacist Warned for Unprofessional Conduct, Dispensing Errors, and Inappropriate Workplace Behaviour

Date of Decision: October 22, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

Failure to return a patient’s prescription to the NHS spine when requested
Inadequate checking of dispensed medication
Dispensing incorrect volume of medication
Unprofessional communication with a patient
Making politically charged and violent statements
Inappropriate and unprofessional conduct toward colleagues, including sexually suggestive remarks and behavior that caused distress

Outcome: Warning issued and published on the register for 12 months

GPhC Standards Breached:

Standard 1 – Deliver person-centred care
Standard 2 – Work in partnership with others
Standard 3 – Communicate effectively
Standard 6 – Behave in a professional manner
Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations

This case centres around the conduct of a locum pharmacist practising in retail pharmacies in Bristol. The allegations spanned multiple incidents and included both clinical and interpersonal concerns. On 27 July 2024, the registrant failed to return a patient’s prescription to the NHS spine upon request, a procedural error that may have disrupted the continuity of care. Furthermore, the registrant failed to adequately check medication prior to dispensing and issued an incorrect volume—both serious breaches of fundamental pharmacy safety protocols.

Additionally, the registrant’s behaviour during a patient interaction was deemed unprofessional. On a separate occasion, dated 8 June 2024, the registrant was overheard making statements that were politically charged and contained violent language, which is wholly inappropriate within a healthcare setting.

Perhaps most concerning, the investigation revealed a pattern of unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards colleagues. Evidence showed that the registrant’s actions and comments had created a toxic working environment, including instances where a colleague “dreaded going to work” due to demeaning behaviour and inappropriate comments, some of which had sexual undertones. This conduct not only breached professional standards but also undermined team cohesion and workplace morale.

Findings

The Investigating Committee concluded that the allegations were substantiated. The registrant’s failure to return a prescription and his dispensing of an incorrect volume of medication were deemed clinical errors that could have jeopardised patient safety. These are basic responsibilities expected of all pharmacists, particularly those operating in high-pressure environments like retail settings.

The panel also gave considerable weight to the unprofessional communication directed toward a patient and the comments made in a separate work setting that included political and violent language. These behaviours were deemed incompatible with the professional conduct expected of a pharmacist.

Further compounding the concerns were revelations regarding the registrant’s treatment of colleagues. The inappropriate behaviour—ranging from sexualised comments to undermining conduct—was considered unacceptable and indicative of a lack of respect for others in the workplace.

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The GPhC Investigating Committee acknowledged that while the registrant’s behaviour was serious, the appropriate regulatory response at this stage was to issue a warning rather than escalate to a fitness-to-practise hearing. The panel took the view that the registrant’s actions, while not resulting in actual patient harm, had the potential to do so, and significantly undermined public and professional confidence in the pharmacy profession.

In their determination, the panel highlighted the following:

“The above matters are serious, had the potential to cause patient harm and to undermine the trust of both the public and colleagues in the profession.”

The Committee considered the registrant’s conduct as falling short of what is expected, and while they stopped short of finding current impairment, the issuing of a warning was deemed necessary to uphold professional standards and to deter similar future conduct.

Sanction

A formal warning was issued. This decision reflects the Committee’s assessment that, while serious, the conduct did not require removal or suspension from the register. However, the warning will be visible on the GPhC register for a period of 12 months and serves as a public record of regulatory concern.

The rationale for the warning included the need to remind the registrant of his obligations under the GPhC standards. It also served a broader purpose of alerting the profession that such conduct—whether clinical lapses or interpersonal failings—will be subject to scrutiny and may warrant formal regulatory action.

The Committee concluded with this cautionary note:

“Any repetition of these, or similar, failings is likely to result in further regulatory intervention.”

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

Accuracy in Dispensing is Non-Negotiable: Dispensing the incorrect volume of medication is a critical error. Pharmacy professionals must have robust checking procedures in place, regardless of workload or workplace setting.
Professional Communication is Essential: Whether engaging with patients or colleagues, pharmacists are expected to communicate respectfully and appropriately. Political or violent language has no place in any pharmacy environment.
Workplace Conduct Matters: Creating a hostile or uncomfortable work environment through unprofessional behaviour is a breach of professional standards. This case illustrates that such actions can trigger regulatory scrutiny even in the absence of formal complaints from colleagues.
Responsibility as a Locum: Locum pharmacists must uphold the same standards as permanent staff, including full adherence to dispensing protocols and respectful workplace behaviour. Locum status does not excuse lapses in professionalism.
Leadership and Influence: Pharmacists are seen as leaders in healthcare settings. Demonstrating integrity and professionalism influences not only patient safety but also team dynamics and public trust.

This case serves as a stark reminder that both clinical errors and personal conduct can attract regulatory action. Pharmacy professionals are urged to reflect on their behaviour, remain vigilant in their clinical practice, and uphold the standards expected of them at all times.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.