Pharmacy Owner Warned for Inadequate Oversight in Dispensing Prescriptions from Gender GP, UK Meds

Date of Decision: July 17, 2025

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

• Dispensing medicines from unregulated online prescribing services (UK Meds and Gender GP).
• Failure to ensure clinical appropriateness and patient monitoring.
• Lack of due diligence and risk assessments in working with third-party prescribing services.
• Failure to obtain sufficient information from prescribers or patients' GPs.
• Inadequate communication and coordination with patients' primary care providers.

Outcome: Warning issued, to be published on the GPhC register for 12 months.

GPhC Standards Breached:

• Standard 1 – Pharmacy professionals must provide person-centred care
• Standard 2 – Pharmacy professionals must work in partnership with others
• Standard 3 – Pharmacy professionals must communicate effectively
• Standard 5 – Pharmacy professionals must use their professional judgement
• Standard 9 – Pharmacy professionals must demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations:

The case concerns a pharmacist who served as the co-owner, director, and Responsible Pharmacist of Kuramed Pharmacy. The focus of the allegations is the pharmacy’s collaboration with two online prescribing services—UK Meds Direct Ltd and Gender GP—between September 2021 and December 2022. These platforms were not regulated by any UK regulatory body, and in the case of Gender GP, prescribers operated from abroad.

Kuramed Pharmacy dispensed a range of prescription medications—including weight loss drugs and treatments for chronic conditions like asthma and diabetes—based on prescriptions issued through online questionnaires. These high-risk medications often require continuous clinical oversight and patient monitoring. However, the pharmacy failed to implement proper clinical checks and safeguards before dispensing, potentially exposing patients to harm. Many prescriptions lacked input from or communication with the patient’s GP, and some patients received repeated supplies without evidence of clinical appropriateness.

Despite being aware of the prescribing model used by these services, the registrant did not undertake the necessary due diligence to confirm that the services adhered to UK clinical guidelines or regulatory standards. There was also a significant failure in risk assessment and in establishing appropriate audit mechanisms for dispensing at a distance.

Findings:

The GPhC Investigating Committee found multiple professional shortcomings:

• The pharmacy did not adequately verify that UK Meds and Gender GP were compliant with UK regulations.
• Medicines were dispensed without confirming whether the prescribing practices were clinically sound or whether the patients were being appropriately monitored.
• Prescriptions were filled without efforts to engage with patients’ regular healthcare providers, leaving gaps in continuity of care.
• The registrant did not perform audits or implement risk assessments to evaluate the safety and appropriateness of remote prescribing arrangements.

These deficiencies posed a considerable risk to patient safety, particularly as some medications required rigorous oversight and ongoing monitoring that was evidently lacking in this model.

GPhC Determination on Impairment:

The panel evaluated the registrant’s conduct in the context of GPhC professional standards. It concluded that the registrant’s failure to exercise professional judgment, perform adequate due diligence, and prioritize patient safety amounted to breaches of several key standards. While the panel did not escalate the matter to fitness to practise proceedings, it considered the conduct serious enough to merit a formal warning.

The Committee emphasized:

“Dispensing high-risk medicines and medicines requiring monitoring, against prescriptions issued remotely on the basis only of an online questionnaire and without the required clinical checks, monitoring in place and engagement of a patient’s GP, can put patients at serious risk of harm and can undermine public confidence in the profession.”

Sanction:

The registrant was issued with a warning, which will remain on the public register for 12 months. This sanction reflects the seriousness of the failures in judgment and procedure, but also recognizes that the registrant has since disengaged from these online prescribing services and appears to have taken steps to avoid such missteps in the future.

The warning serves both as a public record and as a deterrent, underscoring the importance of maintaining patient safety and clinical integrity, particularly when engaging in distance-selling pharmacy models.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals:

1. Regulatory Vigilance: Pharmacists must verify that any third-party service they work with is appropriately regulated and adheres to UK clinical and professional guidelines.
2. Clinical Oversight: Dispensing high-risk or long-term medications requires confirmation that patients are under suitable clinical monitoring. Online questionnaires are not sufficient for ensuring clinical appropriateness.
3. Effective Communication: Collaboration with patients’ GPs or healthcare teams is essential to ensure continuity of care, especially when prescribing remotely.
4. Due Diligence: Pharmacists in managerial or directorial roles have a heightened duty to conduct thorough risk assessments and implement robust governance processes when partnering with external providers.
5. Leadership and Accountability: Pharmacy professionals in leadership roles must ensure that their pharmacy operates to the highest professional standards and mitigates any risks associated with new business models, such as online dispensing.

This case highlights the pressing need for pharmacy professionals to prioritize patient safety and uphold professional integrity when navigating the evolving landscape of digital health services.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.

Log in or Register for free to access.