A pharmacist has been removed from the register after a fitness-to-practise hearing heard he touched a female patient in intimate areas for sexual gratification as he carried out a physical examination he was “not competent or trained to perform” and was “not clinically justified.”

The General Pharmaceutical Council’s FtP Committee decided this month to remove Sajjaad Patel from the register having concluded his actions “reached the threshold of misconduct,” his fitness to practise was impaired and he had damaged public confidence in the pharmacy profession.

The allegations that led to Patel’s removal stretch back four years to September 1, 2020 when the patient came to the branch of Boots in Rawtenstall, Lancashire, where he worked to get the morning after pill. The hearing heard that because she was embarrassed to ask about the pill, Patel took her into a small room.

The patient claimed that when Patel asked her if she had taken the pill before, she replied she had, to which he said he needed to examine her stomach to check her hormones.

The patient said Patel then asked her if he could examine her stomach and whether she wanted “a chaperone” during the examination but she declined because he was “only checking” her stomach. The patient, who was wearing shorts “which had a waistband which was slightly higher than normal,” said Patel put on rubber gloves and asked her to expose her stomach. The hearing heard she turned the waistband down “so her stomach was visible then lifted her top to the bottom of her crop top. At this point, only her stomach was visible just lower than her belly button.”

The patient claimed Patel asked her “can we do a bit lower,” which she said made her feel “uncomfortable” and “incredibly vulnerable.” Nonetheless, she did as he asked and lowered her shorts, exposing her pubic region.

The patient said Patel then pushed “quite hard on her stomach,” forcing her to “push back so that she would not fall over,” before he moved his fingers towards her belly button when he found a lump. The patient asked if it was a hernia and said Patel responded by advising her to see a GP for a scan before moving his hands further down her body towards her vagina.

The hearing heard that after showing her where her bladder was with his hands, he drew a heart shape over the top of her knickers whilst touching her skin around the top of her groin area when explaining where her womb was.

At that point, the patient claimed, he said “and here is where your vagina is,’ pointing to where it was. He then drew a heart shape on her body to point out where her womb was before sliding a hand down to her knickers and touching her clitoris with his fingers. The patient said Patel “pressed on it and asked her if it hurt” and feared he was about to “put his fingers in.”

The patient claimed Patel then cupped both her breasts and squeezed them once before removing his hands from her clothing. She said he then asked her to turn around so he could check her back and, having touched her “all over her back in a prodding motion,” asked her to move her shorts “a bit lower.” At that point, she said, he “felt around her bum with his hands.”

The Committee heard that police came to the pharmacy on September 2, 2020 and arrested Patel. The hearing was also told that on February 27, 2021, Patel was notified by the police, who interviewed him, that he would face formal charges in relation to allegations of sexual assault, prompting a decision to suspend him. A subsequent Crown Court trial found him not guilty.

He touched patient’s breasts, pubic area, clitoris and bum

The FtP hearing heard that Patel denied all the allegations. He insisted he did not touch the patient’s genitals, breasts, bum “or any private parts, even by accident" and also denied showing her where her bladder was or drawing “anything on her body.”

However, he admitted carrying out an examination during which he “felt underneath her breast, above her private parts, and pressed the middle of her back” and accepted he had not completed any external training outside of his degree or qualifications to conduct such an examination. The hearing also heard that he accepted it was “not essential to carry out physical examination prior to providing the (emergency hormonal contraception).”

The hearing heard that Boots carried out an internal investigation and continued to employ Patel having believed he “did not do anything wrong" until a decision was eventually taken to suspend him. However, the GPhC’s FtP hearing found he was not medically trained or qualified to conduct a physical examination and it was “not clear to the Committee what he hoped to achieve through a medical examination for which he had no training.” The hearing also found the patient went to the pharmacy “for the sole purpose to obtain the morning after pill” and it was “unlikely she would have consented to a physical examination with a community pharmacist for anything beyond the scope of obtaining the morning after pill.”

It also emerged the patient was a “training medical practitioner” who was “likely to have known to go to her GP, rather than a community pharmacist, if she had a lump and/or pain in her stomach.”

The Committee said there were inconsistencies in Patel’s explanation for carrying out the examination, “changing from checking whether the lump was sinister; Patient A complaining of pain; and to check if the lump would affect the absorption of the morning after pill.”

Patel insisted he “deeply” regretted conducting the physical examination and accepted it was not part of the supply of EHC. He said he examined her only after she told him about the lump in her stomach.

Patel also maintained that apart from this incident, he had never received any complaints, convictions or arrests and “throughout his career, has provided person-centred care.”

However, he conceded he failed to use his professional judgement when carrying out the examination but insisted he did not put the patient at risk of harm because “he had no intention” to do so and maintained “no members of the public would be put at risk of harm in the future as he has learned a valuable lesson.”

Pharmacist’s conduct presents actual or potential risk to public

However, the Committee concluded Patel breached GPhC standards 1 to 6 (person-centred care; working in partnership with others; communicating effectively; maintaining, developing and using professional knowledge and skills; using professional judgement; behaving in a professional manner.)

The Committee also found he conducted a physical examination which he was not competent and/or trained to perform and was not “clinically justified,” during which he touched a patient’s breasts, pubic area and/or genitalia, clitoris and bum without her consent.

Insisting Patel had “limited remorse” despite apologising to “all those involved with the allegations” and “completed limited remediation” which included finishing an EHC course with his wife, the Committee decided he should be removed from the register.

“Given the limited insight, limited remorse expressed, and limited remediation completed by (Patel), the Committee considers (his) conduct or behaviour presents an actual or potential risk to patients or to the public,” it said.

Patel has the option of appealing against the decision.

Image: The General Pharmaceutical Council's headquarters in Canary Wharf