In Analysis

Follow this topic

Bookmark

Record learning outcomes

A pharmacist in Scotland who was jailed for two years after sexually assaulting two patients in separate incidents in consultation rooms has been removed from the register by the General Pharmaceutical Council. 

The regulator’s fitness-to-practise committee concluded on Monday that Tauqeer Azam, who was convicted and sentenced at Glasgow Sheriff Court in January last year, “continued to present a real risk to members of the public”.

During first incident on May 9, 2021, Azam made sexually inappropriate comments to a patient who sought advice for a rash at a branch of Boots in Edinburgh where he was working.

The committee heard that as the patient lifted the side of her top to show the rash to Azam in the consultation room, explaining to him that it went down to her thigh, he said: “I will need to see that, as if it’s what I think it is, that’s where it starts”.

After the patient unbuttoned her trousers and pulled the right side down with one hand while using her other hand to try and hide her underwear, Azam said: “You don’t need to hide your pants.”

He also told her: “I saw a bit of camel toe, your pants were nice. I wouldn’t mind seeing the rash again.”

Patient told him he was being “inappropriate”

The patient told him he was being “inappropriate” and he apologised. She said she wanted to leave the room and he asked her for her personal details. The committee heard that “while noting her address, he made a comment about where she lived, seemingly trying to engage her in conversation”.

The patient reported the incident to the police and Azam was arrested on July 3, 2021, and interviewed at Livingston Custody before being released without charge.

During the second incident on June 5, 2023, Azam was working at a branch of Well Pharmacy in Glasgow when another patient came in looking for advice about a rash.

She was taken into a consultation room where she explained she had a rash around her vagina and was told to speak to the pharmacist on duty, who that day was Azam.

When she told him about the rash, he asked to take a look at the area and she reluctantly agreed. However, he did not leave the room as she started to undress and the committee heard “he did not say anything and did not turn away”.

It was also told Azam then crouched down in front of the patient “so he was eye level with her vagina” before he asked her to “bend over” which she did.

He started touching her around her vagina and examined her bottom area for about a minute without gloves before asking her: “Have you had any rash symptoms before or experiencing any unusual discharge?” 

The comment made the patient feel “physically sick”

After she told him no and started pulling her shorts up, Azam asked her to bend over again so he could have another look. The committee heard she found his request “strange” since he had already examined the area and it “made her very uncomfortable”.

Azam told her she had a sweat rash and said he would prescribe a steroid cream as he sat at the computer but then looked at her and said: “Off record, you look amazing down there.” The comment made the patient feel “physically sick” and left “her stomach in knots”.

She was asked to wait outside the room while he got the prescription but a few minutes later, Azam invited her back in and told her he was prescribing a different cream and asked her if he could have another look, to which she replied: “Is it necessary?”

When she asked him again, he replied: “No that’s fine, just apply this cream three times a day.” The patient reported the incident to the police and he was arrested and charged with the offences. Police reopened the case relating to the first incident.

The committee said Azam breached four standards, covering pharmacy professionals providing person-centred care, using their professional judgement, behaving in a professional manner and respecting and maintaining a person’s confidentiality and privacy.

Removing him from the register, the committee said Azam “had taken no steps to remediate his behaviour, acknowledging he had been serving a custodial sentence over the last 12 months”.

It also said his “conduct appeared to show some pre-meditation as no chaperone had been offered on either occasion” during the consultations and insisted it “cannot be satisfied he would not repeat this conduct if he were to return to practice”.