GPHC determination — substantive hearing
Struck off the register
The regulator’s term: erasure
What does “struck off the register” mean?
Being struck off (the regulator calls this "erasure") removes the practitioner from the register. They are no longer permitted to practise this profession in the UK. Erasure can be reviewed after a minimum of five years, but is otherwise indefinite.
Concerning James Nicholls, pharmacy technician (GPHC 5015480).
Decision date: 13 November 2024 · Hearing started 11 November 2024 and ended 13 November 2024
In plain English
The GPhC committee decided that James Nicholls should be subject to the published outcome from a principal hearing in a caution and misconduct case. The committee directed removal from the register. It records fitness to practise as impaired. The official determination gives the committee's reasons, order wording, and any conditions attached to the decision.
Charges
The GPhC allegation section states: You, a pharmacy technician, During the course of your employment at the London Clinic (“the pharmacy”) 1. On the 26 April 2023, you inaccurately added 56 tablets of dihydrocodeine 30 mg tablets (“the medication”) to patient A’s patient medication record. 2. On the 26 April 2023, you inaccurately added 56 tablets of the medication to patient B’s patient medication record. 3. On the 6 April 2023 you inaccurately added 56 tablets of the medication to patient C’s medical record. 4. Your actions at paragraphs 1-3 above, were dishonest in that: 4.1. knew that the patients had not been prescribed the medication; 4.2. intended the entries to suggest the patients had been prescribed the medication; 4.3. used the log in details of your colleague, to record the entries at paragraphs 1 and 2; 4.4. made entries at 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 above in order to remove the medication for yourself and conceal your actions. 5. On three occasions between the 17 April 2023 and 22 April 2023: 5.1. you submitted controlled drug requests for ICU ward, NF1 ward and L2 ward 5.2. your actions in 5.1 above were undertaken in order to obtain the medication for your own use or benefit. 6. Your actions at paragraph 5 were dishonest and lacked integrity in that you: 6.1. knew that the medication was not required at the following wards: ICU ward, NF1 ward, and L2 ward; 3 6.2. used the log in details of your colleague, to record the entries at paragraph 5. 7. On the 14 July 2023 you received a police conditional caution from the Metropolitan Police for the theft of 112 dihydrocodeine tablets, contrary to section 1(1) and 7 of the Theft Act 1968. By reason of the above, your fitness to practise is impaired by your: a. Misconduct; b. Caution
Findings
The GPhC Fitness to Practise Committee held a principal hearing for James Nicholls in a caution and misconduct case. The cover page records facts proved: 1, 2, 4 (in its entirety), 5.1 and 7 Facts proved by admission: None Facts not proved: 3, 5.2, 6 (in its entirety). It records fitness to practise as impaired. The committee directed removal from the register.
Source
All facts on this page are drawn from the publicly published GPHC 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.