The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) has just published its review of the General Pharmaceutical Council’s performance in the period from 1 July 2025 to 30 June 2026.
PLEA provided members’ feedback to the PSA (which can be read in the Members’ Area of our website). Unlike last year, the PSA’s report does not make express reference to this feedback.
Overall, the GPhC met 17 out of the PSA’s 18 standards, but failed to meet one of the PSA’s Fitness to Practise Standards in relation to the time taken to deal with cases. That failure has been the focus of much of the news reported so far in the pharmacy press. We have set out below a broader selection of the PSA’s findings.
Racist and other discriminatory behaviour
“The GPhC has taken positive steps to address previously identified gaps, including updating FTP guidance to reference racist and other discriminatory behaviour, strengthening EDI expectations in education and training standards, and establishing work to address differential attainment across pharmacy education and training. The GPhC also updated internal guidance on Islamophobia and Antisemitism …”
Fitness to Practise
- Supporting FtP parties
“Good practice was identified in tailored support provided to parties in a number of cases.”
- Delays in investigations
“In 65% of cases audited we identified examples of avoidable and/or unexplained delay (14 Triage, five Investigation and four IC cases). In all 14 Triage cases identified, there was a delay of four to five weeks from receipt of initial complaint to the GPhC either opening the case or further decision making activity. However, following these initial delays, the GPhC progressed the case in a relatively quick and efficient way with limited examples of further delays thereafter.”
“In three out of seven Investigation cases audited and one out of four IC cases audited we saw examples of unexplained delays in case progression. We also saw examples of delays in managerial and/or legal approval which we have identified as areas for improvement.”
- Interim Orders
The evidence we have seen indicates that the GPhC acts promptly once it identifies that an interim order may be required, and it shows that the GPhC is continuing to apply for interim orders in a timely and proportionate way.
4. Delays in hearings – escalation to the Secretary of State
“The GPhC has reduced the number of open cases older than 104 weeks since last year, from 179 to 142. However, the number of open cases between 52-103 weeks has increased from 126 to 174 cases. Therefore, the overall number of open cases over 52 weeks has slightly increased.”
“The GPhC has over 100 cases awaiting a final FTP hearing, of which over half have been open for more than three years. We recognise that the GPhC’s Committee Rules (which it cannot change) place a statutory limitation on the number and composition of its IC and Fitness to Practise Committees (FtPC), and this limits the GPhC’s ability to schedule more hearings. The GPhC said there are also statutory limitations on how quickly it can schedule a case once referred and served on the parties, and until these reach a final resolution, its closure median at final hearing will continue to rise.”
“The GPhC also aims to increase hearings capacity by 50% this year, which will enable it to resolve the majority of its aged cases awaiting a hearing by the end of March 2027.”
“… it continues to take too long to resolve FTP cases. The end-to-end median has increased each year since 2018/19, and the number of open older cases has increased slightly this year following a significant fall last year. We note the increase is exclusively in cases aged between 52-103 weeks. In accordance with our escalation policy, we have provided an update letter regarding our concerns to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Health and Social Care Committee Chair.”
- Race, sex or age of FtP parties
“The GPhC’s analysis indicates that it has sustained its position of having no statistically relevant variance across race, sex or age at the core decision making stages in its FTP process (i.e. opening an investigation, reaching determination, and issuing sanctions).”
- Antisemitism and Islamophobia – good practice
“The GPhC updated its internal guidance on Islamophobia and Antisemitism. The guidance provides clear working definitions, case examples and legal context to support the investigation of discrimination-related concerns and aligns with the GPhC’s broader commitment to lawful, proportionate and inclusive regulation. The work the GPhC has carried out in this area represents good practice.”
- Quality of decision-making
“Our audit has provided us with assurance regarding the quality of the GPhC’s investigations, and we have no concerns in this regard. However, evidence from the dataset, audit and stakeholder feedback shows that the GPhC continues to take too long to resolve FTP cases.”
“The large majority of decisions we reviewed in our audit were reasonable, and the GPhC’s controls appear effective in ensuring appropriate decision-making. We do not have concerns about the GPhC’s decision-making and we are satisfied that this Standard is met.”
Responding to emerging risks
“The GPhC continues to identify and respond to emerging areas of risk by providing information to help registrants apply the standards, whether that be through newsletters, position statements, advice, informal/formal guidance or by publicising the issues and signposting to existing guidance. We note the recent advice the GPhC developed regarding the supply of weight management medication and the joint work it has carried out with fellow regulators to tackle the emerging risks identified.”
Premises inspections
“We received mixed stakeholder feedback about the GPhC’s premises inspection activity and will monitor the GPhC’s work regarding consistency, transparency and learning.”