What did the GPhC change on 13 January 2026?
The GPhC published an updated inspection decision making framework on 13 January 2026. It replaces the June 2024 version. The framework is the operational document inspectors use to decide whether each of the 26 standards is met. In the regulator's own words, it "is an operational tool to support consistent decision making".
The GPhC lists three changes. It added examples of areas for improvement and good practice. It strengthened the examples on distance supply of medicines. And it added examples that reflect the change in supervision legislation. The new document also absorbs two older ones. The Findings Framework and the Inspection Practice Note on Minor Non-Compliance have both been withdrawn.
The standards themselves did not change. The 26 standards for registered pharmacies date from June 2018 and still apply. What changed is the set of worked examples inspectors use to judge them. The table below compares the June 2024 and January 2026 documents.
| Area | June 2024 framework | January 2026 framework |
|---|---|---|
| Finding categories per standard | Met and not met | Met, not met, areas for improvement and good practice |
| Supporting documents | Findings Framework and minor non-compliance practice note used alongside | Both withdrawn and folded into the framework |
| Handing out in the RP's absence | Not met example under 4.2: handing out prescriptions in the absence of the responsible pharmacist | Met example under 4.2: trained staff hand out checked and bagged prescriptions under documented processes |
| Website transparency | Site must show which pharmacy supplies and when third parties are involved | Adds prescriber name, service address and contact details, and doctor or non-medical prescriber status |
| Weight management | Not mentioned | Met example under 4.2: prescriber independently verifies weight, height and/or BMI |
| Hub and spoke | Managed safely and effectively | Adds consent from people when medicines are assembled off site |
For how the visit itself runs, see what GPhC inspectors look for in 2026. This article stays on what the new framework changed.
What are the four finding categories?
Each standard now has examples in four columns: standards not met, standards met, areas for improvement and good practice. The first two existed before. The last two are new, and they change what appears in your published report.
An area for improvement is a finding "where the standard is met, but specific areas for improvement have been identified". The GPhC says these "typically will not have an impact on patient safety". They still go in the report. The framework states that "areas for improvement will be included in the inspection report so that pharmacies can act on them to improve". So a pass can now carry a public to-do list.
The examples are concrete. Under standard 1.6, an area for improvement is a private prescription record with "a small number of incomplete records in the previous few months". Another is a controlled drug register audited monthly but with some details omitted. Under 4.3, examples include fridge temperatures occasionally not recorded, and date checking that has fallen behind with no expired stock found.
Good practice means the pharmacy is "going above and beyond what is expected under the standards". Examples include staff describing a no-blame learning culture, clinical audits for particular services, and business continuity plans that are regularly tested. The GPhC adds a warning: "over time what may have once been good practice may become standard practice".
Two principles run through the document. First, it "is not an exhaustive list and should be used as a guide and not as a checklist". Second, "the greater the impact on patient safety, the more likely it is that the standard will not be met". Minor omissions in records or a cluttered store are unlikely to fail a standard on their own. But the framework warns that several small shortcomings can add up.
What supervision evidence do inspectors now want?
Inspectors want a written framework for who may do what when the pharmacist is absent, and an audit trail that proves it was followed. The Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025 was made on 10 December 2025. From 7 January 2026 a pharmacist may authorise any member of pharmacy staff to hand out checked and bagged prescriptions while the pharmacist is absent. The remaining provisions start on 10 December 2026. From then, pharmacists will be able to authorise registered pharmacy technicians to carry out, or supervise, the preparation, assembly, dispensing, sale and supply of medicines.
The framework reflects the first change directly. Under standard 1.3, the not met example is team members who "hand out prescriptions in the absence of the RP without a clearly defined framework authorising them to do so". Met examples include a team that "knows what to do in the absence of a responsible pharmacist". Another is a pharmacy that "demonstrates how it manages risks when tasks are delegated to other members of the pharmacy team". Non-pharmacist accuracy checkers should work within clear protocols.
Standard 4.2 adds the operational test. A met example is handing out checked and bagged prescriptions "by trained and competent team members in line with the pharmacy's documented processes". Another is "effective audit trails to identify the individuals involved at each stage of a service". In practice that means a written authorisation, a competence record for each person covered, and a record of who handed out what.
Three things did not change. A responsible pharmacist must still be on duty at each pharmacy. The GPhC says the law is not intended to let a responsible pharmacist be absent for more than two hours. And remote supervision is not permitted. The GPhC also notes that the pharmacist and the person authorised both carry responsibility for the task. The regulator consulted on new standards and rules for responsible and superintendent pharmacists from 17 December 2025 to 25 March 2026. For the full picture, see our guide to the 2026 pharmacy supervision changes.
What do inspectors check on your website?
Inspectors check that your website meets the GPhC's distance-selling guidance and says clearly who is behind the service. Under standard 3.1, a not met example is "the pharmacy website does not meet GPhC distance-selling guidance". A met example is a site that prominently displays the pharmacy's GPhC registration number.
The new wording covers prescribing services. Websites offering access to prescribing services should be "clear and transparent about who provides the services". That includes the name of the prescriber, the address and contact details of the prescribing service, and whether the prescriber is a doctor or a non-medical prescriber. The June 2024 framework already expected a site to make clear which pharmacy supplies the medicines and when third parties are involved. The 2026 version names the prescriber too.
The distance-selling guidance the framework refers to is the GPhC's February 2025 update. Following it is a met example under standard 4.2. Working with a prescribing service that "deliberately circumvents UK regulation or oversight" is a not met example under 1.1. We cover the guidance itself in the GPhC's standards for online pharmacies. The inspection point is simpler: the site is evidence, and inspectors can read it before they knock.
How does the framework treat weight-loss supply?
The framework treats weight-loss medicines as high-risk supply that needs independent verification. Under standard 4.2, a met example reads: "when supplying medicines used for weight management, the prescriber independently verifies the person's weight, height and/or body mass index". The not met column lists high-risk medicines "supplied without independently verifying the information provided in online questionnaires". It also lists supply at a distance "without effectively checking their identity", and prescribing services with no follow-up arrangements for treatments that need ongoing monitoring.
The GPhC's April 2026 review shows why. Published on 24 April 2026, it examined inspection reports and concerns from January 2024 to December 2025. Its figures are below.
| Measure | Figure |
|---|---|
| Inspection reports referring to weight management, Jan 2024 to Dec 2025 | 77 (5 per cent of all inspections) |
| Standards assessed across those inspections | 2,002 |
| Standards recorded as not met or requiring improvement | 106 (5.3 per cent) |
| Share under standard 1.1, risk management | 46 per cent |
| Share under standard 4.2, safe service delivery | 28 per cent |
| Share under standard 1.6, records | 15 per cent |
| Concerns received that referenced weight management | 1,307 |
The common failings were outdated or thin risk assessments, reliance on self-reported weight, poor consultation records and weak assurance over third-party prescribers. Those map onto the framework's new examples almost line by line. The practical checks are set out in what pharmacies must check before supplying weight-loss medicines.
What does it say about prescribing, incentives and hub and spoke?
The framework says prescribers linked to your pharmacy must not be paid in a way that rewards inappropriate prescribing. Under standard 2.6, one not met example is "prescribers associated with the pharmacy have a financial incentive to issue prescriptions that may not be appropriate". Another is "services are provided for financial reward rather than in the best interests of people using services". A promotion such as "buy one get one free" on medicines liable to misuse is another not met example. On the met side, targets should be "applied reasonably so that the pharmacy team can exercise discretion".
Under 4.2, prescribers associated with the pharmacy should prescribe "in line with UK national and best practice guidance". The framework also expects records of consultations, decisions and refusals, and follow-up for treatments that need monitoring. Hub and spoke arrangements should be "managed safely and effectively", and "consent is obtained from people when their medicines are assembled offsite". Regularly tested business continuity plans count as good practice under 1.1.
What has not changed?
The standards, the outcomes and the process are the same. There are still five principles and 26 standards. There are still two overall outcomes: standards met, or standards not all met. If any inspected standard is not met, the whole inspection is not met. Inspections are still unannounced as a general rule, and can take up to three hours.
The January 2025 inspection model also stands. Focused routine inspections check 18 core standards, including 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.2 and 4.3. Inspectors can switch to a full inspection on the day. A pharmacy being inspected for the first time always gets a full inspection. Reports are still published on the inspections website, usually within six weeks, along with any improvement action plan.
The failure pattern has not changed either. A study of 2,197 routine inspections from 2022 to 2024 found seven standards behind most failures, including 1.1, 1.6, 2.2, 3.1 and 4.2. We analysed it in why pharmacies fail GPhC inspections. The new framework adds examples in exactly those areas.
How should you prepare?
Read the framework and mark your own pharmacy against it, column by column. The areas for improvement examples are the ones most likely to appear in an otherwise clean report. A missing fridge reading, a late date check or an incomplete private prescription entry will not fail you on its own. But it will be published, and it will be the first thing the inspector checks next time.
- Write the authorisation for handing out in the responsible pharmacist's absence, name the staff covered, and keep a record of who hands out what.
- Check your website shows the GPhC registration number and, for prescribing services, the prescriber's name, the service address and whether the prescriber is a doctor.
- For weight-management supply, record how weight, height or BMI was independently verified on each patient record.
- Review prescriber contracts and staff targets for anything that rewards volume over judgement.
- Test the business continuity plan once and record the result; it is a good practice example under 1.1.
- Walk the areas for improvement examples for 1.6 and 4.3: fridge logs, date checks, CD register detail, delivery signatures.
Key takeaways
- The GPhC published its updated inspection decision making framework on 13 January 2026, replacing the June 2024 version and withdrawing the Findings Framework and the minor non-compliance practice note.
- Each of the 26 standards now has examples in four columns: not met, met, areas for improvement and good practice. Areas for improvement go in the published report even when you pass.
- Handing out prescriptions in the responsible pharmacist's absence without a clearly defined authorising framework is a not met example under 1.3. The law allowing authorised handing out began on 7 January 2026.
- Websites must meet the February 2025 distance-selling guidance, show the GPhC registration number and name the prescriber, the service address and whether the prescriber is a doctor.
- For weight-management supply the framework expects the prescriber to independently verify weight, height and/or BMI. The GPhC's April 2026 review put 46 per cent of weight-management failings under standard 1.1.
- Prescribers with a financial incentive to issue inappropriate prescriptions, and promotions on medicines liable to misuse, are not met examples under standard 2.6.
- The standards, the two overall outcomes, unannounced visits and the 18-standard focused inspection model are unchanged.
Sources and further reading
- GPhC updates its inspection decision making framework (GPhC, 13 January 2026)
- Inspection decision making framework, January 2026 (GPhC)
- Inspection standards and reports (GPhC)
- Standards for registered pharmacies (GPhC, June 2018)
- Pharmacy supervision legislation FAQs (GPhC)
- Carrying out inspections (GPhC)
- GPhC calls on pharmacies to strengthen safeguards in weight management services (GPhC, April 2026)
FAQs
Inspectors sample records, so make the audit trail build itself.
The 2026 framework asks who handed out, who verified and who prescribed. Dataforge PMR records each step against a named user as the work happens, so the evidence exists before the inspector asks for it.
See Dataforge PMR