Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 25, Issue 2, pp 43–51 | Cite as

A longitudinal study of United Kingdom pharmacists' misdemeanours – trials, tribulations and trends

  • J. Tullett
  • P. Rutter
  • D. Brown


Background: Standards of UK pharmacy practice are maintained by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, which has the power to take a range of sanctions, including removal of the right to practice, against those found guilty of malpractice. This function is currently under review.Objective: To conduct a longitudinal study in order to define trends and identify areas where remedial or preventative support could be focused.Method: Case analysis of reports of individuals' misdemeanours published in the British Pharmaceutical Journal over a 12‐year period (September 1988 ‐ October 2000). Professional and personal misdemeanours were considered.Main outcome measure: Nature of misdemeanour, conviction or disciplinary proceedings against individual, practising pharmacists in the study period. Reasons offered for committing the misdemeanour and penalties applied.Results: 344 cases, involving a wide range of personal (162) and professional (590) misdemeanours were found. On an annual basis, the maximum incidence of pharmacists found guilty of any misdemeanour was extremely low (<0.1 of 1% on the pharmaceutical register). The most common professional misdemeanour was failure to keep adequate written records. The most common personal misdemeanour was fraud. The most common reason cited for committing any misdemeanour was financial gain. Numbers in individual offence categories were persistent but low and there were few obvious trends with time. The odds of involvement ratio for male versus female pharmacists was 7.36 (CI: 5.23‐10.35) and for ethnic minority versus Caucasian pharmacists was 3.8 (CI: 3.06‐4.72). The most stringent penalties (either imprisonment or removal of the right to practice and frequently both) were applied to cases involving personal use or trafficking of drugs subject to abuse.Conclusions: The current self‐regulation of pharmacy practice in the UK involves a wide range of misdemeanours of varying severity; but the incidence of reports of pharmacists found guilty of malpractice was extremely low. The nature of misdemeanours appeared to change little over the period of the study; this study therefore indicates the spectrum of misdemeanours likely to be encountered by a regulating board in the immediate to medium‐term future. If regulatory changes such as competence‐based practice rights are introduced, the spectrum may change.

Ethics Misdemeanour Pharmacy practice Regulation United Kingdom 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Applebe GE, Wingfield J. Dale and Applebe's Pharmacy law and ethics, 6th edition London: Pharmaceutical Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Merrills J, Fisher J. Pharmacy law and practice, 3rd edition. London: Blackwell Science, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. A new code of ethics and standards. Pharm J 2001; 266: 589–96.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Applebe GE, Harrison I. The statutory committee. Pharm J 1993; 251: 197–9.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Applebe GE, Harrison I. The statutory committee and convictions. Pharm J 1993; 251: 265–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Applebe GE, and Harrison I. The statutory committee and major misconduct. Pharm J 1994; 252: 22–5.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wingfield J. Misconduct and the pharmacist. Pharm J 1990; 245: 531–74.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society Health Act Working Party. Reform of multidisciplinary machinery and the introduction of competence based practising rights. Proposals for a First Order under the Health Act 1999. Royal Pharmaceutical Society Professional Standards Directorate. Pharm J 2001: 266; Supplement 1–8.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anon. Society's disciplinary machinery. Pharm J 1998; 261: 225–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hassell K. A study of statutory committee charges and ethnic origin. Pharm J 1996; 261: 225–6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Department of Health. Community pharmacies in England and Wales. London: HMSO, 2000.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Royal Pharmaceutical Society Survey of pharmacists, 1993 and 1994. Pharm J 1996; 256: 284–6.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hassell K, Fisher R, Nochols L, Shann P. Contemporary workforce patterns and historical trends: the pharmacy labour market over the past 40 years. Pharm J 2002; 269: 291–6.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nicoll A. What's in a name? Accuracy of using surnames and forenames in ascribing Asian ethnic identity in English populations. J Epidemiol Comm Health 1986; 40: 364–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hassell K, Noyce P, Jesson J. A dynamic workforce: ethnicity and gender of pharmacy practitioners. Pharm J 1997; 259: R46.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Statutory Committee. Excessive codeine sales lead to three striking-off orders. Pharm J 1989; 242: 21–2.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Statutory Committee Codeine sales complaint leads to striking off order. Pharm J 1989; 243: 199.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Statutory Committee. Three pharmacists ordered to be struck off in first of Schaffer decisions. Pharm J 1996; 256: 301–2.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Statutory Committee. More Schaffer cases decisions: two striking off orders and a reprimand. Pharm J 1996; 256: 450–1.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Statutory Committee. Three more striking-off orders after Schafer case decisions. Pharm J 1996; 256: 892–3.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Statutory Committee. Bedford pharmacist reprimanded in last of the Schafer cases. Pharm J 1997; 259: 123.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Statutory Committee. Controlled drugs misconduct and social security deception lead to striking off order. Pharm J 1997; 259: 881.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Statutory Committee. Person who stole diamorphine may not be restored to the register. Pharm J 1998; 261: 853.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Statutory Committee. Cocaine abuse and temazepam offences lead to double striking off order. Pharm J 1994; 252: 671.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Applebe G, Harrison I. The Statutory Committee and major misconduct. Pharm J 1994; 252: 22–5.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Statutory Committee. Pharmacist to be struck off after unlawfully supplying controlled drugs. Pharm J 1996; 257: 886.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Statutory Committee (1994). Reprimand after falsely claiming urgent fees. Pharm J 1994: 252; 891.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    RPSGB Society consults on disciplinary reform and competence based practising rights. Pharm J 2001; 266: 220.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Medicines Control Agency (2002). Consultation document on supplementary prescribing. (accessed 22 April 2002).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Noyes P. Can the Royal Pharmaceutical Society be a regulator as well as a modern, professional, learned body? Pharm J 2002; 268: 649–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Tullett
    • 1
  • P. Rutter
    • 1
  • D. Brown
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PharmacyUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations