In News

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

A locum pharmacist who ordered antidepressants for his own use without a prescription and removed a bottle of perfume from the pharmacy has been suspended for four months by the GPhC’s fitness to practise committee.  

Pharmacist Mahraz Nickkho-Amiry, whose videolink FtP hearing concluded last Thursday April 9, also admitted to re-sealing escitalopram boxes and putting them back on the shelf to conceal that he had taken some of the medication for himself, and to failing to surrender to custody at Wigan Magistrates’ Court in June 2023 having been released on bail the previous month in relation to the theft allegations. 

While working at Whitworth Chemists in Southport between March-October 2020, Mr Nickkho-Amiry removed five boxes of escitalopram from the pharmacy, in addition to a bottle of Verset Frenesi perfume and a box of Sudafed tablets which he took without paying for.

On several occasions he had requested that orders be placed for the antidepressant, while on a separate occasion in November 2020 he himself placed an order for eight boxes.  

Mr Nickkho-Amiry told the FtP committee he takes full responsibility for his actions and accepts his conduct was dishonest. He said he recognises the impact of his actions on public confidence, as well as on colleagues and his family. 

Since October 2023 he has worked as a locum pharmacist without incident, and has “put in safeguards to prevent any repetition of his behaviour,” which include keeping receipts for in-pharmacy purchases and running any purchases by the store manager to ensure transparency. 

Mr Nickkho-Amiry said he has repaid the pharmacy’s losses in full and now has strategies to help him navigate “the challenges of working as a locum pharmacist”.

The FtP committee acknowledged his remorse and his insight into his previous conduct, but concluded that a period of suspension was necessary to uphold public confidence in the profession and allow him more time to focus on his remediation efforts.  

It concluded that a four-month suspension order “would be proportionate and sufficient to mark the seriousness of the misconduct” and that an interim suspension order is necessary to prevent him from practising during the 28-day appeal period.