Why do pharmacies fail GPhC inspections?

What percentage of pharmacies pass GPhC inspection?

A study published on 14 July 2026 in the journal Pharmacy analysed published GPhC inspection data covering January 2022 to December 2024. The authors are based at the University of Strathclyde and at the GPhC itself, with two of the four employed by the regulator. That is declared within the paper. It gives the analysis unusual proximity to the data, while warranting note by any reader.

Of 2,296 routine inspections reported, 99 were excluded as hospital, prison, veterinary, temporary or dispensing-hub premises, leaving 2,197 pharmacies. Of those, 1,918 were traditional bricks-and-mortar community pharmacies. The other 279 were mostly internet and distance-selling pharmacies, together with clinics. The great majority were in England, with 241 in Scotland and 80 in Wales.

In total 1,922 pharmacies — 87.5 per cent — met all twenty-six standards. The remaining 275, or 12.5 per cent, failed at least one.

One methodological point improves the reading of that figure. The analysis deliberately excluded re-inspections, which follow a recent failure, and intelligence-led inspections, which are triggered by information received. The 87.5 per cent therefore describes routine inspection performance, not the sector's overall record. The true picture including targeted activity would be less flattering. The period was chosen because it follows the pandemic's disruption and precedes the changes made to the inspection model in January 2025.

Which GPhC standards do pharmacies fail most?

Compliance exceeded 85 per cent across all five principles, but performance was not evenly distributed within them. Seven individual standards accounted for disproportionate failure, whatever the pharmacy type.

Two of those reached statistical significance when vaccinating and non-vaccinating pharmacies were compared: standard 1.1 on risk management and standard 3.1 on suitability of premises. By principle, the weakest areas were governance, where 8.6 per cent of pharmacies failed at least one standard, and services, at 7.7 per cent. Equipment and facilities produced almost no failures at all, with 99.4 per cent compliance.

For a pharmacy preparing for inspection, that distribution is the practical finding. Attention directed at equipment is attention largely wasted. Risk management, monitoring, records, staff competence and premises account for very nearly everything that goes wrong.

Do independent pharmacies fail inspections more often?

Independent single-owner pharmacies and independent chains of two to five premises together accounted for nearly half the inspections analysed, at 503 and 550 pharmacies respectively. This is not a marginal segment of the sector encountering the difficulty.

Why do vaccinating pharmacies pass more often?

The study's headline comparison concerned vaccination services, and the difference is substantial. Of pharmacies offering vaccinations, 90.9 per cent met all standards, against 80.4 per cent of those that did not. The gap was widest on governance, at 94.4 per cent against 85.2 per cent; on premises, at 98.5 per cent against 92.8 per cent; and on services, at 94.5 per cent against 87.6 per cent.

Multivariable logistic regression found that vaccinating pharmacies remained less likely to fail even after adjusting for ownership type, with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.49 and a confidence interval of 0.40 to 0.64. A sensitivity analysis treating ownership size as a quantitative variable produced a comparable result. The association is therefore not merely an artefact of larger chains being more likely to vaccinate.

The interpretation nonetheless requires care, and the authors supply it themselves: the relationship should not be read as causal. Administering vaccines does not improve a pharmacy's risk assessments. The likelier explanation, which the paper advances, is that delivering vaccination services requires trained staff, suitable consultation facilities and clear clinical governance systems. A pharmacy capable of satisfying those requirements is already a pharmacy capable of satisfying an inspector.

The paper then identifies a consequence that deserves more attention than it has received. Pharmacies already struggling with workforce development, premises suitability or governance capacity are less likely to take on vaccination services. They therefore do not access the additional remuneration commissioned services provide — money that could be reinvested in the very infrastructure they lack. That is a self-reinforcing disadvantage. It argues for commissioning approaches that build governance maturity rather than paying purely on volume.

What do inspectors write about governance?

The authors examined 99 inspector comments attached to the standards showing the largest differences, and coded three themes. The first concerned governance.

Recurring observations included ineffective management of dispensing errors and near misses, inadequate risk assessment, and a general absence of accountability. Alongside those sat gaps between written procedures and actual practice, unresolved actions carried over from previous inspections, and systemic failures capable of compromising patient safety. One inspector's comment described a pharmacy whose written procedures did not reflect current practice, whose management of near misses and incidents was incomplete, and whose team members were unclear how to provide services safely in certain circumstances.

Two of those merit particular attention, because they are entirely within an owner's control and cost nothing but attention. Unresolved actions from a previous inspection convert a survivable finding into evidence of a pharmacy that does not respond to regulatory feedback. And procedures which do not reflect current practice is the failure our SOP guide exists to prevent. It arises not because procedures were never written, but because practice moved and the documents did not.

What do inspectors write about staffing?

The second theme concerned staffing levels and competency. The comments divide into two distinct failures that are frequently conflated.

The first is insufficient staff: inspectors describe arrangements inadequate for the workload, and routine tasks going uncompleted or completed late. The second is insufficiently trained staff: team members undertaking tasks without the right training, and individuals unclear about their own role and its limitations. Notably, one such comment came from a pharmacy within a medium-sized chain. Scale mitigates the gradient without eliminating the problem.

The contrast drawn in the paper is instructive. Among the pharmacies meeting standards, inspectors recorded structured ongoing training, protected time to learn during working hours, and team members holding appropriate skills and competence for the tasks they performed. The distinguishing feature is not whether training exists but whether it is structured, protected and evidenced.

What premises problems do inspectors find?

The third theme concerned the physical environment. The specific findings are unglamorous and entirely fixable.

Inspectors recorded unsuitable medicines storage, absent systems for stock rotation and expiry checking, and compromised security with uncontrolled access to medicines. Medicines capable of causing harm or being misused were not suitably managed. Pharmaceutical refrigerators were frequently found not working properly, or containing inappropriate items including foodstuffs. Cleanliness issues appeared. One comment described a dispensary as disorganised and cluttered, with limited clear space to dispense and check safely, items on the floor presenting tripping hazards, and an untidy consultation room.

Against that, pharmacies meeting standards showed good housekeeping, clean and well laid-out premises, and adoption of technology or newer working methods making service provision safer or more effective. The gap between the two descriptions is a morning's work in many cases. That is precisely why this theme repays attention before an inspector arrives, not afterwards.

Why do online and distance-selling pharmacies struggle?

The paper identifies difficulties specific to internet and distance-selling models, and they will be familiar to readers of this site's other coverage.

On governance, inspectors noted the transactional nature of medication requests, misleading website content, and a particular absence of adequate risk assessment. One comment described a distance-selling pharmacy that did not appropriately review its prescribing service to establish whether its processes kept people safe. That is the same architectural failure our consultation flow guide addresses, appearing in an inspector's own words.

On premises, the findings were physical rather than digital. Inspectors described insufficient storage for the volume of stock held, floors congested with overflow, and premises lacking the space to support the dispensing volume being undertaken. Growth had outrun the building — a recognisable failure mode for any online pharmacy scaling faster than its lease.

One important qualification applies. Since these inspections were conducted, the GPhC has issued updated guidance on providing services at a distance and on ensuring a safe and effective pharmacy team. It has since reported improvement in internet pharmacy performance. The distance-selling picture within this dataset is therefore historical rather than current.

What does this mean for a small independent?

The gradient is a description, not a destiny. The study's own themes indicate where effort produces the greatest return.

Industrialise the governance a chain would centralise. The advantage larger organisations hold is documented, repeatable process, not superior judgement. A single pharmacy can write the same risk assessments, run the same near-miss review and keep the same records. The effort required is a fraction of what running the pharmacy already demands.

Close the loop on previous findings. Unresolved actions from a prior inspection appear repeatedly within the comments. They are the most avoidable finding available.

Make training structured and evidenced. Protected time and a record of it distinguished the compliant pharmacies, and both are within a sole owner's gift.

Walk the premises as an inspector would. The refrigerator, the floor, the expiry checks, the consultation room and the security of access account for a substantial share of failures and require no capital.

Consider whether the services gap is compounding. If limited governance capacity is preventing a move into commissioned services, that decision is also withholding the funding that would improve capacity. Breaking that circle is a strategic question, not a compliance one.

What does the study not show?

Four limitations are worth stating. The authors identify three of them themselves.

Inspection outcomes represent performance at a single point in time and do not describe ongoing practice. The relationship between vaccination provision and inspection outcome is associative rather than causal. The analysis does not distinguish between vaccination service models, whether NHS-commissioned, locally commissioned or private. And the data predates both the January 2025 changes to the inspection model and the updated inspection framework published on 13 January 2026. That framework replaced the 2019 version, added guidance on supervision and delegation, hub and spoke services and prescribing, and introduced new categories inspectors may record covering good practice and areas for improvement. The framework generating these outcomes is accordingly not the one operating now. For weight management services in particular, the current framework makes failure to independently verify weight, height or BMI an inspection failure, as the verification duties article sets out.

A further point of method deserves noting for readers who assess evidence carefully. The thematic analysis of inspector comments was assisted by a large language model for initial visualisation and categorisation. The authors state that all outputs received academic oversight, and that coding followed an established thematic analysis framework with themes agreed by all authors. That is a transparent and increasingly common approach, disclosed rather than concealed, which is the appropriate treatment.

Key takeaways

FAQs