Pharmacy Technician Suspended for Falsely Claiming to be Pharmacist and Doctor

Date of Decision: November 5, 2019

Registrant's Role: Pharmacy technician

Allegations:

• Dishonestly providing false information in a reference letter.
• Forging a colleague's signature on the reference letter.
• Wearing an ID badge stating “Locum Pharmacist” while not registered or working as such.
• Misrepresenting employment status and professional title on a tenancy guarantor form.
• Falsely claiming to be a medical doctor and providing misleading information to colleagues.
• Submitting a timesheet for days not worked.

Outcome: Suspension extended for 6 months due to continued impairment of fitness to practise.

GPhC Standards Breached:

• Standard 1 – Provide person-centred care
• Standard 2 – Work in partnership with people
• Standard 3 – Communicate effectively
• Standard 6 – Behave professionally
• Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

Allegations
The registrant, a pharmacy technician, faced serious allegations of dishonesty that spanned various incidents during and after a locum placement. These included fabricating information in a job reference, forging a colleague’s signature, and misusing professional titles. Specifically, the registrant:

• Drafted and submitted a reference letter that was falsely stated to have been written and signed by a colleague.
• Forged or allowed the forgery of the colleague’s signature after she declined to sign the reference.
• Wore an identification badge stating “Locum Pharmacist” despite not holding that role.
• Claimed to be in full-time employment and listed “Doctor” as an occupation in a tenancy guarantor application, while in fact working part-time as a pharmacy technician.
• Made repeated false claims to colleagues, asserting that he was a medical doctor and had completed a UK medical degree.
• Submitted a timesheet for workdays he had not attended.

These acts formed a pattern of dishonest behaviour within a short period, primarily aimed at personal gain or self-representation, rather than patient care or direct clinical practice.

Findings
The GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee found the majority of the allegations proved, concluding that the registrant’s conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. Notably, the Committee determined that:

• The dishonest actions occurred within a professional setting and misused the trust and infrastructure of a healthcare employer.
• The misconduct had the potential to bring the pharmacy profession into disrepute.
• While not related to clinical practice, the behaviour breached fundamental ethical principles.

The original determination, made in October 2018, found impairment based on misconduct under Rule 5(2)(b), (c), and (d). These include bringing the profession into disrepute, breaching fundamental principles, and undermining the registrant’s integrity.

GPhC Determination on Impairment
In the 2019 review, the Committee revisited whether the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired. Although the registrant participated via Skype and submitted documents including a reflective statement, CPD logs, and character references, the Committee found these insufficient. His reflections were deemed superficial, lacking specific engagement with the original dishonesty findings.

The Committee highlighted that true remediation required:

• Detailed personal insight into how the dishonest behaviour occurred.
• A credible plan to prevent recurrence.
• Authentic reflection rather than recitation of standards.

The Committee remarked:

“The reflective statement is little more than a recitation of the standards which apply to pharmacy professionals. It does not contain a description of how the Registrant has applied those standards in his daily life.”

Further concerns arose when the registrant trivialised his misconduct as “silliness” and provided vague reassurances rather than substantive evidence of change. The character references also lacked context or direct acknowledgment of the misconduct, limiting their value.

Sanction
Given the insufficient evidence of insight and remediation, the Committee determined that the registrant’s integrity still could not be relied upon. As a result, his fitness to practise remained impaired under Rule 5(2)(d).

A further six-month suspension was imposed to provide the registrant with an opportunity to:

• Engage more meaningfully with the findings.
• Develop and demonstrate full insight.
• Take corrective actions such as targeted CPD and holding a trusted position.

The Committee stated:

“It is considered that a further period of six months’ suspension would be sufficient to enable the Registrant to obtain evidence to demonstrate that he has addressed the concerns of the original Committee…”

The option of removal from the register was considered but deemed premature, as the registrant had begun to engage with the regulatory process.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Honesty is Fundamental: Pharmacy professionals must uphold the highest standards of honesty. Dishonest conduct, even outside clinical settings, can significantly damage public trust and the profession’s reputation.
2. Reflective Practice is Critical: Genuine, detailed reflection demonstrating insight and accountability is essential when remediating professional failings.
3. Title Integrity: Misrepresenting one’s role or qualifications, such as claiming to be a doctor or pharmacist when not registered as such, is a serious breach of trust and regulatory standards.
4. Misuse of Position and Documents: Using a colleague’s name, signature, or institutional resources without consent undermines professional relationships and can endanger colleagues’ careers.
5. Mitigation Requires More Than Words: Emotional appeals or general apologies are insufficient. Regulatory bodies require evidence of structured remediation, learning, and behavioural change.

This case highlights the importance of professional integrity and accountability. It serves as a critical reminder to all pharmacy professionals of the ethical responsibilities that underpin public trust in healthcare.

Original Case Document

The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.

Log in or Register for free to access.