GPhC increases minimum level of study for pharmacy technicians in new training standards

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has approved new standards for the initial education and training of pharmacy technicians, meaning an increase in the required level of study for the profession.

The regulator consulted on changes to the standards between 1 October and 24 December 2025, with the consultation receiving 880 responses — 772 from individuals and 108 from organisations.

In council papers published ahead of its meeting on 16 July 2026, the GPhC said that more than three-quarters of respondents (77%, n=678) to its consultation agreed with its proposal to increase the minimum level of study for pharmacy technicians to Regulated Qualifications Framework (RQF) level 4, or Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF) level 7 or above.

Pharmacy technicians are currently required to have a minimum level of study at RQF level 3 or SCQF level 6.

“Proposed changes to level of study have been prompted by the widening scope of pharmacy technician roles, including the introduction of PGDs [patient group directions] to allow pharmacy technicians to administer and supply certain medicines; and forthcoming legislation to enable them to take responsibility for dispensing and supplying medicines without supervision by a pharmacist,” the GPhC said.

In January 2026, the then Royal Pharmaceutical Society supported this proposal, saying in response that it would help “future-proof” the profession.

Pharmacy technicians will now also need “a minimum RQF level 2 science qualification (or equivalent) as an entry requirement”, while final accuracy checking will be introduced as a core competency for all trainees, the GPhC said.

Commenting on the changes, Gisela Abbam, chair of the GPhC, said: “The feedback reinforced the strong case for updating our initial education and training standards for pharmacy technicians, which are now more than ten years old. The role of pharmacy technicians has changed significantly over that time and continues to evolve, with growing responsibilities and increasing professional autonomy across healthcare settings.”

She added that the GPhC understands “that implementing these changes will bring challenges for some employers and education providers, including considerations around workforce supply, training capacity and costs”.

“We have listened carefully to the concerns raised through the consultation and will work closely with stakeholders as the changes are introduced,” Abbam said.

“However, we are clear that raising the level of study is necessary to support the future development of the profession and, most importantly, to maintain patient safety and public confidence in pharmacy services.”

To address concerns around raising the required RQF level, Kathie Cashell, chief executive of the GPhC, said the change would be phased in and apply “only to those training in the future”.

“While new education and training programmes are expected to begin operating from 2028, full implementation will not be before autumn 2029,” she said.

“We are not planning any new requirements for pharmacy technicians who are already registered, pre-registration trainee pharmacy technicians or those due to start their training.”

During the same council meeting, the GPhC discussed clarifying aspects of its proposals for rules and standards for responsible pharmacists, as well as standards for superintendent pharmacists.

A separate consultation, which ran from 17 December 2025 to 25 March 2026, asked for views on proposed rules and standards to strengthen pharmacy governance and increase patient safety.

The consultation received 411 responses — 404 of which responded to the consultation survey, while 7 responses were received by individual and organisations that wanted to write more generally about their views.

The council papers noted that fewer than half of respondents (49%) were in favour of its proposal to set minimum requirements for responsible pharmacists (RPs), while four in ten (40%) respondents disagreed. It also highlighted that of the organisations that responded, more than half (57%) did not think that additional minimum requirements were needed.

In its response to the consultation, the Royal College of Pharmacy said: “The RP must be a registered pharmacist, and introducing any additional requirements would create unnecessary bureaucracy and make pharmacy practice more difficult.”

It added that introducing additional criteria had the potential to undermine the delivery of services, as it could reduce the pool of pharmacists able to fulfil the role.

When it comes to setting additional minimum requirements for superintendent pharmacists, the GPhC said that more than half (57%) of respondents supported this, while nearly three in ten (29%) disagreed. Among organisations that responded, nearly half (47%) agreed, while a similar proportion (43%) disagreed.

Considering the feedback, the GPhC said some issues raised require “additional consideration and clarification before the new standards and rules can be finalised”. It continued that some feedback may be “more appropriately addressed in supporting guidance rather than our standards, which are intended to be high level and outcome focused”.

The regulator said that it will bring a final draft of the standards to a council meeting, which is due to be held on 5 October 2026, adding that the standards and rules must be published before the second phase of supervision changes comes into force on 10 December 2026.