Pharmacist’s Fitness to Practise Restored After Controlled Drugs Documentation Failure and Police Caution

The case involved a pharmacist who, while working as a pharmacy manager, failed to properly process and endorse prescriptions for controlled drugs (methadone) before leaving his position. As a result, numerous prescriptions were left unprocessed, leading to a financial loss of approximately £3,200 for the employer.

Additionally, after leaving his role, the pharmacist failed to cooperate with regulatory authorities. Repeated attempts by the police and the GPhC inspectors to contact him were ignored, and he failed to notify the Council of his change of address, in breach of registration requirements. The registrant was eventually traced to a different address, arrested, and later accepted a police caution for non-compliance with controlled drugs regulations.

Findings:

At an earlier hearing in 2013, the Fitness to Practise Committee found that the registrant’s actions displayed a lack of awareness of pharmacy law and professional responsibilities. The committee highlighted that the registrant had supplied controlled drugs on at least 170 occasions without adhering to legal procedures, which constituted criminal offences.

Furthermore, the registrant’s attempts to evade regulatory investigations brought his integrity into question and were deemed a serious lapse from the standards expected of a pharmacist.

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

During the 2015 review hearing, the Fitness to Practise Committee assessed whether the pharmacist’s fitness to practise remained impaired. The committee acknowledged the registrant’s efforts over the previous two years to remediate his past failings. Evidence was provided to show that:

• The pharmacist had engaged in ongoing professional development.
• He had worked under supervision and had been actively involved in updating Standard Operating Procedures.
• He had received positive references from colleagues and patients.
• He had developed a greater understanding of pharmacy law and ethics, even considering further postgraduate study in healthcare law and ethics.

Based on this, the committee concluded that his fitness to practise was no longer impaired and decided to lift all restrictions on his registration.

Sanction:

The Fitness to Practise Committee did not impose any further sanctions. The previous conditional registration order was allowed to expire, meaning that the registrant could resume practising as a fully registered pharmacist without restrictions.

Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

This case highlights several important lessons for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians:

1. Strict Compliance with Controlled Drug Regulations:
   Pharmacy professionals must follow legal requirements for dispensing and documenting controlled drugs. Failure to do so can lead to criminal offences and regulatory action.
2. Professional Integrity is Essential:
   Attempting to evade regulatory investigations or failing to maintain professional obligations (such as notifying a change of address) can be viewed as dishonest and unprofessional conduct, putting a pharmacist’s registration at risk.
3. Ongoing Professional Development Can Help Rehabilitate Fitness to Practise:
   Engaging in training, supervision, and continuing professional development can demonstrate remorse and insight, which may influence a regulator’s decision on whether fitness to practise remains impaired.
4. Pharmacists Must Recognize Their Limitations:
   The registrant acknowledged that he took on responsibilities beyond his experience level, leading to errors. Pharmacy professionals should seek support and mentorship when dealing with complex regulatory requirements.
5. Public Confidence in the Profession is Crucial:
   Any professional failings that compromise public trust in pharmacy services will be taken seriously by regulators. Even if no harm occurs, misconduct involving controlled drugs can lead to severe consequences.