General Pharmaceutical Council determination — substantive hearing

GPhC imposes conditions on Afreen Afzal over online pharmacy failings

The GPhC committee imposed 12 months of conditions after finding serious misconduct during part-time work as a responsible pharmacist. Approved supervision was required before she returned to work.

MedicWatch editorial · Published 3 October 2024 · Updated 23 September 2026

Conditions on practice (practising with restrictions) — 1 year

Data last checked: 23 September 2026Report a correction

What does “practising with restrictions” mean?

Conditions of practice allow the practitioner to keep working but only subject to specific restrictions — for example, supervision, limits on certain procedures, or required reporting to the regulator.

Concerning Afreen Afzal, pharmacist (General Pharmaceutical Council 2212896).

Decision date: 3 October 2024 · Hearing started 23 September 2024 and ended 3 October 2024

In plain English

The GPhC committee decided that Afreen Afzal's fitness to practise was impaired after failings during about ten part-time shifts at an online pharmacy. Although she was not an owner, it found that she had responsibilities as the pharmacist in charge. It imposed 12 months of conditions, including approved supervision before returning to work. No actual patient harm was evidenced. One questionnaire allegation was dismissed; the remaining allegations were admitted.

Charges

Between around 1 August and 14 December 2020, Afzal was alleged, as a responsible pharmacist at PharmacyOnline.co.uk, to have failed to ensure robust risk management for high-risk medicines; to have failed to check prescribing services and safeguards; and to have allowed inadequate online consultation processes, dispensing of GenderGP prescriptions without appropriate checks, inadequate audits and unauthorised access to patient records. Particular 4.2 alleged that the consultation process allowed patients to amend questionnaire responses to obtain medication. That particular was dismissed with no case to answer; the other amended allegations were admitted.

Findings

The committee found serious misconduct and impairment on personal and public-interest grounds. Afzal worked about ten part-time shifts as responsible pharmacist; she was not an owner and did not run the business. Her limited involvement did not remove her responsibility to check that dispensing was appropriate. Her insight and remediation were incomplete, leaving a risk of repetition. The committee found no evidence of actual patient harm. Particular 4.2 was dismissed with no case to answer; the remaining amended allegations were proved by admission. It imposed 12 months of conditions, including a prohibition on working as a superintendent, approved remote supervision before returning to work, a development plan addressing prescription monitoring, record keeping and escalation, peer review, training and reflection. A review was required before expiry. The substantive decision was to take effect on 1 November 2024 or after any appeal. Immediate interim conditions, for up to 18 months, covered the period until the substantive decision took effect or an appeal concluded; they were not an additional 18-month substantive sanction. At the sanction stage, the committee clarified that Afzal had not practised for over a year, correcting earlier evidence that she was currently working as a locum.

Mitigating factors

• There is no evidence that any patient actually suffered harm • The misconduct took place during the Covid pandemic, when pharmacies were experiencing greatly increased demand and were under significant pressures • Ms Afzal’s involvement in the online pharmacy was less - she only worked ten part time shifts • The Registrants admitted all of the Particulars of Allegation at the start of this hearing • There is no previous Fitness to Practise history for any of the Registrants • Ms Afzal has been in part time practice (albeit very limited) for two years without any further incidents.

Aggravating factors

• The misconduct took place in the workplace, and over a period of approximately four months • The case involved a substantial number of transactions involving medication which is liable to misuse and abuse • There was a serious risk to patient safety, including the risks of overdose and addiction • This case involved a significant breach of several professional standards • All three Registrants were experienced pharmacists • The dispensing to GenderGP patients involved children and those who were vulnerable • The supply of codeine linctus (controlled drug) included to customers who may have been vulnerable (i.e. had addictions) on a large scale

Source

All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published General Pharmaceutical Council determination linked below. MedicWatch does not editorialise the regulator’s findings.

Spot something incorrect?

If a fact on this page is wrong, or you believe the page should not be published, please submit a correction or takedown request.