Superintendent Pharmacist Suspended for Falsifying Responsible Pharmacist Records to Cover Absences
Date of Decision: July 24, 2025
Registrant's Role: Pharmacist
Allegations:
- Falsifying Responsible Pharmacist (RP) log entries to reflect the presence of a pharmacist who was not present.
- Operating a pharmacy without a Responsible Pharmacist on-site in contravention of regulations.
- Dishonesty in misrepresenting RP presence in official records.
- Breaching regulatory requirements by maintaining inaccurate RP logs.
Outcome: Suspension for 5 months
GPhC Standards Breached:
- Standard 5 – Pharmacy professionals must use their professional judgement.
- Standard 6 – Pharmacy professionals must behave in a professional manner.
- Standard 9 – Pharmacy professionals must demonstrate leadership.
Case Summary
Allegations
The case centred on the actions of a Superintendent Pharmacist who, during a critical early phase of operating a new distance-selling pharmacy, engaged in repeated falsification of the Responsible Pharmacist (RP) log. Between May and September 2020, the registrant entered or allowed entries falsely indicating that either he or another pharmacist, referred to as Person A, were acting as the RP on specific dates. These entries were made while neither individual was present on the premises, which is a fundamental breach of the Medicines (Pharmacies) (Responsible Pharmacist) Regulations 2008.
Specifically, the registrant allowed the pharmacy to operate on 16 occasions without an RP present. On at least two occasions, he was physically out of the country but falsely recorded himself as the RP. In other instances, he falsely recorded Person A—who was not available and unaware of these falsifications—as being present as RP. This not only breached legal requirements but was found to be deliberate and dishonest.
Findings
All allegations were admitted by the registrant and accepted by the panel. The misconduct was deemed serious, reflecting deliberate and repeated dishonest conduct over four months. The panel acknowledged that the falsified records involved systemic breaches intended to deceive auditors and inspectors, enabling the pharmacy to function without adequate professional oversight.
In assessing the registrant’s culpability, the panel considered the personal and financial pressures he faced while establishing his pharmacy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite these pressures, it was determined that the actions were planned and executed knowingly, and thus carried high culpability. The panel found the dishonesty “persistent and repeated” and done for personal and business gain.
GPhC Determination on Impairment
The panel concluded that the registrant’s fitness to practise was currently impaired. Although he no longer posed a significant risk to patient safety due to the remediation steps taken, the panel emphasized that public confidence in the pharmacy profession necessitated a finding of impairment.
The registrant had demonstrated significant insight and reflection, starting from late 2023, having initially deflected responsibility. Since then, he had undertaken relevant CPD, enhanced his understanding of professional responsibilities, and embedded rigorous protocols in his pharmacy. His reflections highlighted an awareness of how dishonest conduct undermines public trust and compromises patient care.
A pivotal statement from the determination illustrates this reflection:
“I understood the importance of integrity, accountability and acting promptly when a mistake occurs.”
Sanction
The Committee imposed a suspension of five months, judging this as proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct. The registrant’s dishonesty, though not involving patient records, was found to be a grave breach of trust. It involved the repeated use of another professional’s identity to conceal regulatory non-compliance. The panel considered but rejected lesser sanctions, such as a warning or conditions of practice, on the grounds that they would not sufficiently uphold public confidence in the profession.
In reaching the decision, the Committee balanced several aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating factors included the registrant’s senior role and the fact that the dishonesty was sustained and planned. Mitigating elements included his previously unblemished record, substantial evidence of insight, and a demonstrable track record of ethical conduct in the five years since the misconduct ended.
Key Learning Points for Pharmacy Professionals
- The Role of the RP Is Non-Negotiable: Pharmacists must not under any circumstances allow a pharmacy to operate without a qualified RP present. This requirement is a legal and ethical cornerstone of pharmacy practice.
- Dishonesty Undermines Public Trust: The repeated falsification of regulatory records damages both individual professional standing and the reputation of the pharmacy profession as a whole. Even when no immediate patient harm occurs, such actions necessitate regulatory intervention.
- Personal Hardship Does Not Justify Professional Misconduct: While the registrant faced legitimate financial and personal stressors, the decision illustrates that such pressures do not excuse breaches of regulatory or ethical standards.
- Remediation and Insight Are Vital but Not Always Sufficient: Although the registrant showed sincere and significant personal growth, the panel still imposed a suspension to uphold public confidence and professional standards.
- Proper Supervision and Governance Are Critical: Pharmacists running their own businesses must ensure robust systems of governance. The temptation to compromise on compliance due to operational pressures must be resisted.
This case underscores the paramount importance of honesty, compliance, and integrity in pharmacy practice. It serves as a clear warning to all pharmacy professionals that shortcuts taken under duress may have lasting consequences for one’s professional standing and public trust in the sector.
Original Case Document
The full determination transcript is available to logged in users.
Log in or Register for free to access.