Pharmacy Technician’s Conditions Extended for 12 Months Due to Ongoing Deficient Performance

The registrant had been subject to a previous suspension and then 18 months of conditions after being found unfit to practise due to:

• Inaccurate medication history documentation
• Repeated dispensing and labelling errors
• Lack of engagement with feedback from colleagues
• A finding of dishonesty after falsely claiming advice had been taken from a pharmacist

The original Committee found that the registrant’s behaviour posed an ongoing risk to patients and that she lacked insight and remediation at that time.

A prior review Committee accepted she had improved insight into her dishonesty, but had not remediated her performance deficiencies, which included her dispensing practice and clinical documentation.

Current Review Findings (December 2020)

The Committee found that:

• The registrant still had not demonstrated sufficient remediation of her earlier failings, particularly regarding dispensing accuracy and medication history.
• She had recently secured employment but had not yet completed probation, nor provided sufficient evidence of safe or competent practice.
• CPD undertaken was limited and unrelated to prior performance concerns (e.g., covering general training like safeguarding and fire safety).
• No testimonials or employer reports were provided, even though the registrant had started a new role.

“The registrant’s CPD was of limited value… and she could have provided references relating to attention to detail and information gathering, which are relevant both professionally and personally.”

Despite claiming she did not intend to return to community or hospital pharmacy roles, the Committee held that:

• Intentions are not a sufficient safeguard.
• The registrant could find herself needing new employment in the future, where she might be required to dispense or label medication.
• There was a meaningful risk of repetition, particularly as she had been out of direct dispensing roles for over two years.

The Committee stated:

“She has not demonstrated commitment to remediation. The deficiencies remain as they were at the time conditions were first imposed.”

GPhC Determination on Impairment

• The registrant’s fitness to practise remains impaired due to ongoing deficient performance.
• Despite expressing willingness and engaging with the process, her efforts were too limited or too recent to demonstrate she could practise safely without restriction.
• There was no sufficient evidence that the registrant could consistently work safely and effectively in a pharmacy environment.

Sanction

The Committee ordered that the conditions be extended for another 12 months, enabling the registrant to:

• Continue in her new role under close supervision
• Comply with professional development requirements
• Undertake remedial activities that specifically address past performance issues

Key requirements included:

• Notification of all employers and the GPhC
• A development plan focused on dispensing accuracy, medical history logs, and professional communication
• Supervisor and mentor reports submitted every three months
• A continued ban on working as a locum or relief pharmacy technician

“This is a proportionate response to the risk to patients and the registrant’s own interests.”

A further review will be required before the end of the 12-month period.

Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals

1. Remediation must be specific and targeted – General CPD is insufficient if it does not address past failings.
2. Lack of recent, relevant experience can raise regulatory concerns – Even when employment is secured.
3. Working under supervision does not remove the need for independent evidence – Testimonials, audits, and reflections are essential.
4. Intentions alone do not ensure public safety – Registrants must demonstrate capability across all core areas.
5. Conditions are both protective and restorative – They serve the public and provide a structured path back to safe practice.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of evidence-based remediation and the need for pharmacy professionals to take active steps in rebuilding competence following regulatory findings. The extension of conditions for 12 months reflects the GPhC’s position that while the registrant shows some progress, safe, unsupervised practice cannot yet be assured. Continued efforts, supervision, and focused development will be essential moving forward.