What are the new Responsible Pharmacist standards?

What do the new standards change?

They give the responsible pharmacist role a written description for the first time. Until now the law has set the RP's job in two places. Section 72A of the Medicines Act 1968 puts one pharmacist in charge of securing the safe and effective running of each registered pharmacy. The Medicines (Pharmacies) (Responsible Pharmacist) Regulations 2008, in force since 1 October 2009, add the mechanics: the notice, the pharmacy record, the written procedures and the two-hour absence limit.

The GPhC's draft package does two things. It rewrites the mechanics as GPhC rules, and it adds standards of conduct and performance for the person holding the role. The same consultation, opened on 17 December 2025, also covered superintendent standards, an annex on authorising technicians, and two additions to the standards for registered pharmacies.

None of it is in force yet. The GPhC Council was asked in July 2026 to note the consultation findings rather than approve the drafts. It returns to them on 15 October 2026. The table shows the package as it stood on 7 August 2026, drawn from the GPhC consultation document and The Pharmacist's report of the July Council paper.

Why is the GPhC writing them now?

Because two pieces of legislation handed it the job. The first is the Pharmacy (Responsible Pharmacists, Superintendent Pharmacists etc.) Order 2022, in force from 1 December 2022. It moved the power to set RP rules from ministers to the GPhC and its Northern Ireland counterpart, and let them set standards describing the RP and superintendent roles. The 2008 Regulations stay in force until the GPhC's first rules take effect.

The second is the Human Medicines (Authorisation by Pharmacists and Supervision by Pharmacy Technicians) Order 2025, SI 2025/1249. Parliament and the Privy Council approved it on 10 December 2025. Its first phase came into force 28 days later, on 7 January 2026. Since then a pharmacist can authorise any member of the pharmacy team to hand out checked and bagged prescriptions in the pharmacist's absence. The remaining provisions commence on 10 December 2026, a date fixed by an Order of Council made on 4 February 2026. From that day a pharmacist can authorise registered pharmacy technicians to carry out, or supervise others carrying out, the preparation, assembly, dispensing, sale and supply of medicines. Technicians will also be able to supervise aseptic preparation in hospitals.

The GPhC says the remaining changes take effect "once supporting regulatory rules, standards and professional guidance have been developed". These "will be in place by the 10 December 2026". The RP standards are part of that scaffolding. For the full picture of both phases, see the 2026 supervision changes.

What do the four draft standards require?

They ask the RP to run the pharmacy day to day in a way an inspector can see and audit. The consultation document groups the duties under four headings, each with a list of things the RP "must" do. The table summarises them from the GPhC's December 2025 consultation document.

Two points stand out. Standard 3 is new territory. It makes the RP the on-site check on authorisations, even where a different pharmacist gave them. The draft says the RP can change or withdraw an authorisation if it "does not meet patient safety obligations" or undermines the safe running of the pharmacy. In its March 2026 response the Royal College of Pharmacy flagged a tension with the legislation, which allows only the authorising pharmacist to amend or withdraw. Expect this to be tidied up before October.

Standard 4 is broad. "Record all activities related to the management of medicines, medical devices, and any other products and services" covers far more than the pharmacy record. It turns record-keeping into a personal duty for whoever is signed in.

What do the draft rules say about absence and records?

They keep the 2008 framework almost intact. The GPhC proposed to continue the "one pharmacy" rule. An RP "can only be responsible for one pharmacy premises at any given time". They cannot perform the role anywhere other than the pharmacy where they are signed in. The GPhC also proposed to keep the absence limit at two hours during business hours. Where two RPs cover a day, the total time when either is absent must not exceed two hours in a 24-hour period running from midnight to midnight.

The conditions on absence also carry over. Where reasonably practicable, the RP must be contactable while away and able to return "with reasonable promptness". Otherwise another pharmacist must be available to give advice. The notice rule stays, with one modern addition. An online pharmacy can display the RP's details on its digital platform, or communicate them when medicines are supplied.

On records, the draft divides the work. The superintendent keeps the records of organisational oversight. The RP keeps the records for the "safe and effective day-to-day running of the pharmacy", including interventions, consultations and controlled drugs records. Where there is no superintendent, the owner takes that share. The consultation asked which records should sit with the RP, so the final list may move. The baseline is the 2008 pharmacy record, which still applies today.

How do the standards fit the supervision changes?

They tell pharmacists how to use the new powers without losing control of them. The annex to the standards for pharmacy professionals sets the ground rules for authorising a technician from 10 December 2026. The law allows an authorisation to be general or specific, with conditions, oral or written. The GPhC's expectation is tighter: authorisation "will be provided in writing, with oral authorisation being used only in an emergency". Even then the pharmacist must make a full written record by the end of that day.

Accountability is shared, not transferred. The draft states that the pharmacist "remains professionally accountable for any selling or supplying under any authorisation they make". The technician must be competent, within scope, willing, and clear about the limits of the task. They can say no if they think the task is outside their scope or they do not feel confident.

The RP's part is the check. Standard 3 makes the signed-in RP confirm that every authorisation in force matches the SOP, and pass the checked records to the superintendent. The superintendent standards put the authorisation SOP itself, and the same-day recording rule, on the superintendent.

What stays the same?

The core of the role. The GPhC's supervision FAQs are explicit on four points. There must still be a responsible pharmacist on duty at each pharmacy. A pharmacy technician cannot perform the role. The changes "are not intended to allow a Responsible Pharmacist to be absent from the pharmacy for longer than two hours". And they "do not allow for the Responsible Pharmacist to supervise pharmacy staff remotely".

So a pharmacy cannot open without a pharmacist signed in, before or after 10 December 2026. Hand-out of checked and bagged prescriptions, and later technician authorisation, work within the two-hour window, not instead of it. What changes is who writes the detail, and how much of the RP's conduct is spelled out.

Why did Council defer them, and what happens on 15 October?

Because the consultation split on several proposals. The GPhC Council met on 16 July 2026. The paper before it asked members to note the findings, not to approve the rules and standards. The Pharmacist reported the wording on 23 July. "While there was consensus agreement for the majority of proposals, some were less clearly supported," the paper said. Some proposals "received fairly strongly opposing views". The consultation drew 411 written responses, including 374 from individuals and 30 from organisations.

The GPhC listed four areas needing more work. The first is minimum requirements for superintendent appointments. The second is the timing expected for appointing a new or interim superintendent. The third is clarity on roles and responsibilities across the positions. The fourth is the requirements around the two-hour absence rule. On the numbers reported, 57 per cent of respondents supported additional minimum requirements for superintendents. Almost three quarters, 74 per cent, backed keeping the two-hour absence limit.

The sector's bodies pulled in different directions. The Royal College of Pharmacy was still the RPS when it responded in March. It warned that a minimum time-served requirement for RPs would create "unnecessary bureaucracy" and shrink the pool of eligible pharmacists. The NPA supported the two-hour rule and warned that lengthening it could lead to remote supervision. The Company Chemists' Association said the drafts were "not aligned" with how multi-site businesses operate.

The package is expected to return for approval at the Council meeting on 15 October 2026, which the GPhC lists on its meetings page. A further Council meeting is scheduled for 10 December 2026, the day phase two commences. That leaves a narrow window for publication. If October approves the rules, expect the final text and any transition guidance in the weeks that follow. The GPhC has not said whether the rules and the standards will take effect on the same day.

What should you do before 10 December 2026?

Treat the drafts as the direction of travel and fix the things that will not change. The absence limit, the notice, the record and the SOPs are current law under the 2008 Regulations, and inspectors check them now. Our guide to writing SOPs your team will follow covers the format. If your business has a superintendent, agree who owns which records before the split becomes a standard. Our guide to appointing a superintendent pharmacist covers the legal criteria.

One last point for online operators. The draft standards cover services provided at a distance, and the RP notice now has an online form. Read the drafts alongside the GPhC's standards for online pharmacies. The RP is the person an inspector will ask about the website's identity checks.

Key takeaways

FAQs