Pharmacy Technician Suspended for Three Months Following Forgery to Obtain NPA Qualification

The registrant, a newly qualified pharmacy technician, enrolled on the National Pharmacy Association’s Accuracy Checking Technician (ACT) course in 2017. To pass the course, candidates must submit a portfolio with evidence of 1,000 accuracy checks and regular appraisals by a supervising pharmacist.

She submitted her ACT portfolio in October 2017, but:

• Some key documents were missing the required signatures, prompting the NPA to request resubmission.
• She later submitted the missing documents—with her supervising pharmacist’s signature forged.
• She also submitted a photograph with a forged signature to meet the ID requirements for the ACT exam.
• The tutor comments in her appraisal forms were later revealed to be written by a friend with no pharmacy connection.

After initially denying the forgeries in a letter to the NPA—claiming her supervising pharmacist had signed everything—she later admitted forging the documents during the GPhC investigation.

Findings

The GPhC panel found:

• The registrant repeatedly acted dishonestly, intending to obtain a professional qualification.
• The dishonesty included forged signatures, fabricated tutor feedback, and false statements to the NPA.
• Although she had the technical ability to pass the course legitimately, her actions undermined public confidence in the profession.

The committee stated:

“The repeated forging of a senior colleague’s signature, for the purposes of obtaining a professional qualification, fell far below the standard of conduct to be expected of a registered pharmacy technician.”

The panel considered mitigating factors such as:

• Her young age and inexperience
• The lack of support in her training environment
• Her eventual full admissions and apology
• Positive professional references from her new employer

However, aggravating factors included:

• The planning and sophistication of the deception (e.g. arranging a friend to write fake tutor comments)
• Her initial denial and attempt to blame her supervisor
• The fact that she only confessed when she realised the evidence was overwhelming

GPhC Determination on Impairment

The panel concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was impaired, noting:

• There was a risk of repetition as her commitment to ethical standards was not yet fully ingrained.
• Her conduct would damage public confidence if left unaddressed.
• Upholding professional standards required a finding of impairment due to the serious nature of the dishonesty.

Sanction

The committee imposed a three-month suspension, with a review before return to unrestricted practice.

In its reasoning, the panel said:

“This short suspension is required to demonstrate to the public and the profession that this type of behaviour is wholly unacceptable.”

The suspension was accompanied by an interim suspension order, taking immediate effect to preserve public confidence until the full order came into force.

At the review hearing, the registrant is expected to:

• Provide evidence of deeper reflection on professional ethics.
• Show that she understands the consequences of dishonesty and can uphold standards moving forward.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Forgery and dishonesty, even early in a career, can lead to suspension – Integrity is a fundamental requirement of all pharmacy professionals.
2. Obtaining qualifications dishonestly undermines public trust – Even if someone is technically competent, how they obtain credentials matters.
3. Initial denial worsens outcomes – Attempts to conceal misconduct reduce regulatory confidence in a professional’s insight.
4. Professional ethics must override workplace pressures – Even in unsupportive environments, ethical standards must be maintained.
5. Regulatory processes prioritise public confidence – Sanctions protect not only patients but also the reputation and integrity of the profession.

Conclusion

This case shows how early-career pharmacy professionals are held to high standards of honesty and integrity. The three-month suspension reflects the seriousness of the misconduct and serves as a clear message that professional qualifications must be earned honestly, and that ethical standards apply at all stages of a pharmacy career.