A concern has been raised

By a patient, an employer, a superintendent pharmacist or the GPhC, and you need something behind your response.

A dispensing error is being investigated

What is really being examined is the hour after it — whether it was reported, whether the patient was told, and how quickly. Standard 8.

You are writing your reflective account

Since January 2026 you may write it against any of the nine standards, which changes what you should choose if a concern is live.

You are a pharmacy technician

The same nine standards and the same revalidation requirements apply to you. This course is written for both professions despite its title.

You are applying for restoration

You are off the register and working towards going back on it. What you did in the meantime is the heart of the application, and you do not need to be registered to take this.

Nothing has been raised

You want your consent, records and speaking-up habits to stand up to scrutiny before anyone examines them.

Dispensing errors and what followed

The error itself is rarely the whole concern. Whether it was reported, whether the patient was told, and how quickly, is what separates a near miss closed quickly from a case that runs for two years.

Not speaking up

Standard 8. Concerns about safety, staffing or a colleague’s practice that were noticed and not raised — and the reasons people give for that afterwards. Our Duty of Candour course covers the other half of this standard in depth.

Confidentiality and privacy

Standard 7. Information discussed where it could be overheard, accessed without a reason to, or shared without a basis — a live risk in a busy retail setting.

Professional judgement under pressure

Standard 5. Supply decisions, refusals, and the point where commercial or workload pressure meets a clinical call.

Conduct and behaviour

Standard 6. How you behaved towards patients or colleagues, and conduct outside work where it affects confidence in the profession.

Records

Notes and audit trails too thin to show what was checked, decided or discussed — and the difficulty of answering a concern without them.

Overview of healthcare ethics

Three lessons: what healthcare ethics is, why it matters in pharmacy practice, and the GPhC’s role in setting and enforcing standards.

The core ethical principles

Four lessons: autonomy, beneficence and non-maleficence together, justice, and confidentiality.

Integrity, candour and records

Three lessons: maintaining honesty and integrity, the duty of candour when something goes wrong, and documentation and record-keeping.

Patient-centred care and shared decisions

Two lessons: informed consent, and communication with the people using your service.

Professional boundaries and conduct

Two lessons: maintaining appropriate boundaries, and behaving professionally in and outside the pharmacy.

Breaches of ethical standards

Four lessons and the part that answers a live concern: the common breaches, their consequences, the actions the GPhC can take, and the steps to take to remediate.

Conclusion and assessment

Conclusion and takeaways, followed by a post-course assessment. Your certificate is issued on completion.

Reflective account

The written piece submitted at revalidation describing how you meet the GPhC standards. Since 1 January 2026 you may write it against any of the nine, where previously the GPhC selected three each year. It is the only part of revalidation the standards attach to. The standards themselves did not change — only the range you may pick from.

Near miss

An error caught before it reached the patient. Recording and learning from near misses is ordinary good practice; the concern arises where a pattern of them was visible and nobody acted, or where one that did reach a patient was treated as though it had not.

Speaking up

Standard 8, which covers both raising concerns about safety and being open when things go wrong. In pharmacy fitness to practise it does more work than almost any other standard, because it governs the hour after an error rather than the error itself.

Professional judgement

Standard 5. The reasoned decision you make where the law, the evidence and the patient’s interests do not point the same way — a supply decision, a refusal, a query raised with a prescriber. What is assessed is the reasoning and whether it was recorded.

Duty of candour

For pharmacy professionals this sits inside standard 8: the GPhC describes being candid with the person concerned, and with colleagues and employers, as at the heart of that standard. It means being open when something goes wrong, saying sorry, explaining and putting things right — and in pharmacy it usually arises the moment a dispensing error is discovered.

Insight

Understanding what went wrong, why, and the effect it had on the patient and on confidence in the profession — together with what has changed as a result. It is what a response is read for, and it is shown rather than claimed.

Provide person-centred care

Obtaining consent, involving and enabling the person in decisions, giving information they can understand, respecting and safeguarding dignity, and recognising your own values without imposing them.

Work in partnership with others

Working with the person and with everyone else involved in their care, taking action to safeguard people including children and vulnerable adults, and making and using records of the care provided.

Communicate effectively

Adapting how you communicate, overcoming barriers, listening actively, and checking the person has understood what they have been told.

Maintain, develop and use their professional knowledge and skills

Recognising and working within the limits of your knowledge and skills and referring on when needed, using up-to-date evidence, and regularly monitoring and reflecting on your practice.

Use professional judgement

It includes declaring personal or professional interests, practising only when fit to do so, recognising the limits of your competence, and managing any goals, incentives or targets so that the care you provide reflects the needs of the person.

Behave in a professional manner

Being polite and considerate, trustworthy, acting with honesty and integrity, showing empathy, treating people with respect, and maintaining appropriate personal and professional boundaries.

Respect and maintain the person’s confidentiality and privacy

Managing information responsibly and securely, taking steps to maintain privacy in your environment, and not discussing information that identifies a person where it can be overheard by others not involved in their care.

Speak up when they have concerns or when things go wrong

The GPhC puts the duty of candour at the heart of this standard, and expects registrants to raise a concern even when it is not easy, to tell their employer and the relevant authorities promptly, to say sorry and put things right, and to think about what would prevent the same thing happening again.

Demonstrate leadership

Taking responsibility for your practice, assessing and minimising risk, delegating only to people who are competent and appropriately trained with proper oversight, and not abusing your position or influencing others to abuse theirs.

You may now choose any of the nine

Since 1 January 2026 pharmacists and pharmacy technicians may reflect against any of the nine standards. Previously the GPhC selected three each year — most recently 1, 2 and 5 — and you had to use one or more of those. Note this is a change to the revalidation framework, not to the standards: those are still the May 2017 nine.

The standards attach to this part only

You do not need to reflect against a standard for your CPD records or your peer discussion. That is a common misunderstanding, and it wastes effort in the wrong place.

Do not identify where you work by name

Describe the setting, not the pharmacy. It matters most when you are reflecting on the incident behind a concern, which is exactly when identifying detail is most likely to creep in.

Choose the standard that genuinely fits

If a concern is live, 6, 7 or 8 will usually be the honest choice. Being able to pick the one that actually fits your situation is what the 2026 change was made for — and a reflective account written against a standard that has nothing to do with your circumstances reads as an exercise in compliance.

Before anything else: do not amend the records

Not the patient medication record, not the dispensing log, not the near-miss log. Altering an entry after a concern has been raised turns a dispensing problem into an integrity one, and every system logs the change with a timestamp and a user. If something genuinely needs adding, take advice and add it openly as a new, dated entry.

Report it the same hour, every time

Make it a fixed rule rather than a judgement call, because the judgement call is what goes wrong under pressure. The hour after an error is what will be examined, and a habit you can point to is worth more than an intention you describe.

Tell the patient, and record that you did

Who you told, when, what you said, and what you offered to put it right. Candour that happened but was never written down is candour you cannot evidence, and the record is what your account will be checked against.

Concede the delay if there was one

If you waited, say so and say why. A concession about the hour after the error is worth more than any amount of explanation about the error itself, and a reader who spots the gap you did not mention will assume the worst about it.

Write your professional judgement down at the time

The supply you refused, the query you raised, the reasoning behind the call. Standard 5 is assessed on the reasoning, and reasoning that exists only in your memory is reasoning nobody can check.

Use the peer discussion properly

Revalidation already requires a peer discussion, so have it with someone who knows what is actually alleged rather than a sanitised version. It satisfies the requirement and produces third-party evidence at the same time, which your own account of your own improvement never will.

How you conducted yourself, where this one covers how decisions were reached.

Standard 8 in depth: being open when something goes wrong, and apologising properly.

Standard 7 in depth: who may access information, and on what basis.

Records as evidence — and why they must not be amended once a concern has been raised.

Professional judgement under pressure, and the reasoning behind a supply decision or a query to a prescriber.

The element assessed in almost every case, and the one most often described as lacking.

How to write reflection that reads as understanding rather than regret — useful for your reflective account too.

Turning insight into concrete, evidenced change a panel can verify.