Addictive Stock Creatives/ Alamy Stock Photo
Patients and pharmacies have raised more than 500 complaints in the past year about electronic prescription service (EPS) nominations being changed without patient consent, The Pharmaceutical Journal has learned.
Data obtained by The Pharmaceutical Journal through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests show that in the period between 1 July 2025 and 30 June 2026, 412 concerns were raised to the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), while approximately 162 complaints were raised to integrated care boards (ICBs).
The investigation conducted by The Pharmaceutical Journal follows reports of EPS nominations being changed without patient consent, potentially using automated systems.
Dionne Spence, chief enforcement officer at the GPhC, commented: “We have seen a general increase in concerns relating to the EPS nominations over the last two years. These range from the failure to update a nominated pharmacy at the time a prescription was issued, to cases of unauthorised bulk transfers of EPS nominations to new pharmacies.”
The GPhC told The Pharmaceutical Journal on 19 August 2026 it received 412 concerns where the primary concern related to the alleged transfer of nominations without consent. However, the regulator added that it was currently not aware of evidence indicating large-scale automated nomination transfers using technological advances.
Of the concerns raised in the past year, 146 were closed at triage with no further action required, while 117 were closed at triage and signposted to the relevant ICB or NHS organisation for further consideration, the data revealed.
It also showed that one in five concerns were referred to inspection teams as intelligence, while a further 5% (n=22) resulted in a reminder being issued to the superintendent pharmacist regarding compliance with their contractual obligations.
“EPS nominations should be made with consent from the patient and without pressure, as per NHS England rules,” Spence continued.
“We will consider taking regulatory action where concerns suggest these principles have not been followed, or that patients have been put at risk.”
Figure 1: Outcome of concerns raised to the GPhC where the primary concern related to the alleged transfer of nominations without consent
Further FOI requests made by The Pharmaceutical Journal revealed regional variation in the number of complaints made to ICBs.
According to the data, between 1 July 2025 and 30 June 2026, most ICBs received between 0 and 5 complaints regarding inappropriate EPS nominations. However, North East and North Cumbria ICB received 10 complaints; West Yorkshire ICB recorded 15 complaints; and Greater Manchester ICB were sent 92 complaints, the data highlighted.
Luvjit Kandula, director of strategy and pharmacy transformation at Community Pharmacy Greater Manchester, said the volume of complaints in the area could be related to the work the local pharmaceutical committee (LPC) had done to help contractors raise concerns about the issue to the ICB, which included putting a complaints process in place and encouraging patients to raise concerns.
The issue seemed to have increased in the past year, but consequences were difficult to enforce, particularly amid changes to ICB teams and increased workload, she said.
Louise Gatley, director of services and contractor support at Community Pharmacy Greater Manchester, noted that the LPC was meeting regularly with the ICB, and complaints were being investigated and followed up.
A spokesperson for Greater Manchester ICB said that when the ICB received a complaint, it would ask for more information from the patient and the pharmacy, which was then passed on to the Pharmaceutical Services Regulations Committee panel.
“Actions taken to date have included suspension of smartcards where it has been shown that a high volume of nomination changes have been actioned for a number of patients, without consent, by the same pharmacy over a short period of time by the same individual,” the spokesperson added.
“For pharmacies where a single complaint has been received, the actions have included additional training for all staff members, updates to the pharmacy’s standard operating procedures and a period of review.”
