Lucia Graphus / Alamy Stock Photo
The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has published acceptance criteria for fitness-to-practise (FtP) complaints for the first time, setting out which FtP concerns about pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and registered pharmacies will be taken forward for investigation.
The criteria explain that a pharmacy professional’s fitness to practise can be called into question on specific legal grounds and states that not every error or concern will lead to a formal investigation.
The regulator said it will consider the seriousness of the issue, whether it forms part of a pattern and whether it constitutes being “reckless” and an ongoing risk if the complaint is to be taken forward.
In 2025, the GPhC received more than 7,500 concerns — the highest number in its history. The regulator said the criteria are intended to reduce the number of avoidable concerns it receives and progresses.
In the criteria, the GPhC stated that it is “not a general pharmacy complaints body, and our role is not to resolve disputes” and that it does not have the power to order apologies or compensation.
“Our role […] is limited to those matters where there is an ongoing risk to patient safety, or where public confidence could be seriously undermined in pharmacy,” it added.
Examples of conduct more likely to require investigation include dishonesty, sexual or racial harassment, repeated professional errors, recklessness in handling high-risk medicines, inappropriate relationships with patients, failing to be open about mistakes and supplying medicines without properly considering the patient’s best interests.
By contrast, isolated or minor professional errors that do not indicate ongoing risk to patients, issues already “appropriately addressed locally” and “poor customer service” without aggression or threats are listed as less likely to require investigation.
For performance concerns, multiple medicines-related errors, failure to learn from mistakes and continued poor performance despite local management are identified as more likely to require investigation.
A small number of isolated issues, or performance matters being managed locally, are less likely to meet the threshold.
On criminal matters, the GPhC has said that more serious offences — particularly those involving dishonesty, violence or sexual conduct, or those connected to professional practice — are more likely to require “to suggest impaired FtP”.
Minor driving offences, youth cautions and protected convictions are unlikely to require further regulatory action.
The guidance also covers health concerns, explaining that a health condition will only raise a FtP issue where it affects a professional’s ability to “provide services safely” and is not being properly managed.
“It is important to understand that being ‘unfit to work’ is about protecting the welfare of the individual concerned,” it stated, “while being ‘unfit to practise’ is about protecting the public.”
Dionne Spence, chief enforcement officer at the GPhC, said the updated criteria were intended to “provide more clarity about which concerns fall without our remit”.
“By improving understanding of when we need to be involved and when we don’t, we expect to reduce avoidable concerns and focus our regulatory effort where it makes the greatest difference to patient safety and public trust,” she added.
Claire Anderson, president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said: “We welcome the GPhC’s updated acceptance criteria. Clearer guidance helps pharmacists and pharmacy teams understand when regulatory action is required, reducing avoidable concerns and allowing them to focus on providing safe, high-quality patient care. By focusing on cases with the greatest potential impact, the approach will help to strengthen patient safety and public confidence in pharmacy.
“We are also mindful of the GPhC’s 2023/2024 data showing disproportionate representation of ethnic minority pharmacists at the referral stage of the FtP process. Greater clarity and consistency in decision-making are important to ensuring the process is fair and proportionate.”
In July 2025, GPhC council papers showed that concerns reported to the regulator had increased 13% year on year since 2021/2022 — an increase of more than 100% over four years.
In September 2025, the Professional Standards Authority revealed that the GPhC failed to meet standards for timeliness on FtP complaints for the seventh year in a row.
