Remediation in GPhC cases
The GPhC’s hearings and outcomes guidance puts it simply: the expectation is that a professional can accept and understand that they should have behaved differently, which is insight, and will take steps to prevent it happening again, which is remediation. Both feed into the central question of whether you currently have the skills, knowledge, character, behaviour and health needed to practise safely.
The GPhC judges conduct against the Standards for pharmacy professionals, nine standards that apply to every registrant, from providing person-centred care to speaking up when things go wrong. Good remediation names the standard in question and shows, with evidence, how you now meet it.
Remediation is not a box to tick. The GPhC’s guidance warns that general character references are unlikely to be directly relevant, and that some conduct is so serious that remediation may not be taken into account when deciding the outcome. What helps is targeted learning, honest reflection and proof that your practice has changed.
Before you start
We are an independent CPD provider, not part of the GPhC. No regulator approves remediation courses, and no course can guarantee an outcome. Take advice from your defence organisation, union or solicitor, and agree with them which learning is relevant to your case.
Match your GPhC concern to the right course
Choose courses by the allegation and the standard it engages. One or two closely matched courses with a strong reflection are more persuasive than a long list of loosely related ones.
Dispensing errors and patient safety
Dispensing and supply errors engage standards on person-centred care and using professional judgement. The committee will want to see that you understand the cause, not only the error. Show the learning, the changes to your checking process, and any audit or supervised practice demonstrating that the change has worked over time.
Dishonesty and probity
Dishonesty undermines the integrity of pharmacy professionals and damages public confidence. The GPhC’s guidance identifies intentionally defrauding the NHS or an employer and falsifying patient records as examples where removal may be appropriate. Remediation should show deep, honest reflection on why integrity matters and on what led you to act as you did.
Prescribing and supply of medicines
Concerns about prescribing, controlled drugs or inappropriate supply, including online, go to professional knowledge, judgement and patient safety. Show what you have learned about safe prescribing and supply decisions, how you now assess requests and check identity and clinical history, and when you refer, seek advice or decline to supply.
Confidentiality and records
Standard 7 requires you to respect and maintain the person’s confidentiality and privacy. Concerns include accessing records without a reason, discussing patients inappropriately or sharing data. Show an accurate understanding of when information can and cannot be shared, the safeguards you now follow, and how you keep accurate records of what you did.
Boundaries and sexual misconduct
The GPhC’s guidance says some acts of sexual misconduct are incompatible with continued registration, so take specialist advice early. Where a case concerns lower-level boundary issues, remediation should show real understanding of trust, power and vulnerability in pharmacy settings, including private consultation rooms, home visits and services delivered in private.
Discrimination and behaviour
The guidance says unlawful discriminatory behaviour towards patients, the public or colleagues is unacceptable, and committees should usually consider outcomes at the upper end of the scale. Remediation should go beyond a course: show honest reflection on your attitudes, what you have learned about their impact, and real change in how you treat people at work.
Speaking up and candour
Standard 8 requires you to speak up when you have concerns or when things go wrong. Failing to report an error, covering up a near miss or not being open with a patient can turn a small mistake into a fitness to practise case. Show you understand the duty of candour and how you now act on it.
The four stages of a GPhC fitness to practise case
The GPhC describes four stages. Only the most serious cases reach stages three and four, but it is worth preparing as if yours might, because the same evidence carries forward.
- 1
Stage one: triage
The GPhC first checks whether a concern falls within its remit, using published acceptance criteria. If a concern is not for the GPhC, the person raising it may be pointed to another organisation. If the concern is accepted for further enquiries, you will be told. This is the time to contact your defence organisation or union, gather your own records, and start thinking about what went wrong.
- 2
Stage two: investigation
GPhC investigators look at whether you have the skills, knowledge, character and health to practise safely. They may gather statements, records and expert advice, and you will be asked for your response. At the end, the GPhC applies its threshold criteria to decide whether to refer the case to the Investigating Committee. Only the most serious cases go further, so early, relevant remediation is worth providing with your response.
- 3
Stage three: Investigating Committee
The Investigating Committee meets in private. It has a chair, a pharmacy professional and a lay member, and reads your written response alongside the Registrar’s recommendations. It applies a real prospect test. It can take no action, give advice, issue a warning, agree undertakings with you, ask for further investigation, or refer the case to the Fitness to Practise Committee. Decisions are sent within 10 days.
- 4
Interim orders
Where there is a serious risk, the GPhC can apply for an interim order, which either suspends you or restricts your practice while the investigation continues. Interim order applications and reviews are heard by the Fitness to Practise Committee. An interim order is not a finding that the allegations are true. Evidence of the steps you have taken to reduce risk can be relevant at review.
- 5
Stage four: Fitness to Practise Committee
A three-person panel hears the case, usually in public, and applies the balance of probabilities. It decides in turn whether the facts are proved, whether your fitness to practise is currently impaired, and what outcome is needed. The GPhC’s guidance says evidence of how you currently practise is relevant to impairment and should not be left until the outcome stage, so bring your remediation evidence forward.
- 6
Outcomes, reviews and restoration
If impairment is found, the committee can give a warning, accept undertakings, impose conditions for up to three years, suspend you for up to 12 months, or remove you from the register. Removal is not available where the concern is solely about health. Review hearings usually follow conditions or suspension, and you will be expected to show that past impairment has been addressed. After removal, you can apply for restoration only after five years.
What GPhC committees look for
The GPhC publishes separate good decision making guidance for the Investigating Committee and for Fitness to Practise Committee hearings. Read together, they show what kind of remediation evidence carries weight and what does not.
Genuine insight shown through actions
The hearings and outcomes guidance asks committees to consider whether you have genuinely demonstrated insight, not only consistently throughout the hearing but also through your actions after the incident. Saying the right things at a hearing is not enough on its own. What you did in the weeks and months after the concern arose, such as reporting an error, changing a process or seeking supervision, is part of the evidence of insight.
Remediation that addresses the concern
The Investigating Committee guidance lists evidence of remediation, further training and steps taken to put things right among the factors it can weigh. Training should be relevant to the allegation and linked to the standard engaged. A short reflective account explaining what each course taught you and how you have applied it at work turns a certificate into evidence the committee can actually use. Explain what you would now do differently in the same situation.
Apology, candour and remorse
The guidance refers to whether the professional has shown remorse or set out to put things right, including by being candid and offering an apology. It also recognises that cultural differences, ill health or communicating in a second language can affect how an apology or insight is expressed. Write plainly and sincerely in your own words, and apologise to the patient where advised; committees are asked to look at substance rather than polish.
Relevant, not generic, references
The GPhC says that references and testimonials that simply support a professional’s character in general terms are unlikely to be directly relevant, and the Investigating Committee should not usually consider purely personal mitigation. If you obtain testimonials, ask referees who know about the concern to describe what they have seen of your current practice, such as dispensing accuracy, communication or record keeping, since the incident. One specific reference is worth several general ones.
Seriousness of the conduct
Remediation cannot carry the same weight in every case. The Investigating Committee guidance says some conduct, such as dishonesty, sexual misconduct and discrimination, may be so serious that remediation evidence is not appropriate to take into account when deciding the outcome. The hearings guidance says there is no presumption of removal in all dishonesty cases, but the effect on public confidence must be given proper weight. Take advice early in these cases.
Recommended GPhC remediation courses
All 19Each course is self-paced and online. You get scenario-based questions with an 80% pass mark, a structured reflective account and a CPD certificate showing your name, the course title and the CPD hours.
Fitness to Practise for Healthcare Professionals
A Core Course on Regulation, Current Impairment and Professional Response in the United Kingdom
Professionalism and Professional Standards for Pharmacy Professionals
GPhC Standards, Revalidation and Professional Conduct in Pharmacy
Ethics and Ethical Standards for Pharmacists
Principles, GPhC Standards and Professional Conduct in Pharmacy
Ensuring Clinical Competence and Patient Safety for Healthcare Professionals
Competence, Safety, and Continuous Development in Practice
Probity for Healthcare Professionals
Honesty, Integrity, and Trust in Professional Practice
Prescribing Guidance and Standards for Healthcare Professionals
Safe, Ethical, and Effective Prescribing in Practice
Duty of Candour in Healthcare Practice
Being Open and Honest When Things Go Wrong
Ensuring Confidentiality in Healthcare Practice
Protecting Patient Information in Line with UK Law and Professional Standards
Professionalism in Documentation for Healthcare Professionals
Accuracy, Integrity and Accountability in Clinical and Non-Clinical Records
Putting together evidence for the GPhC
Send the GPhC evidence it can use. Keep each item relevant to the allegation and dated, and take advice on what to submit at each stage.
What to put in your bundle
- A reflective account for each allegation, linked to the relevant Standards for pharmacy professionals.
- Certificates from closely matched courses, with a note of what you changed in practice afterwards.
- Updated standard operating procedures or checklists you introduced, signed off by your superintendent or manager where possible.
- A dispensing or record-keeping audit showing results before and after the changes.
- A supervisor’s or mentor’s report describing your current practice, not just your character.
- Testimonials from people who know about the concern and can speak to how you work now.
- Records of any incident reporting, significant event review or learning shared with your team.
- A personal development plan with dated goals linked to the concern.
Writing your reflection
- Name the standard you fell short of and explain, in your own words, why it matters to patients.
- Describe what happened factually, without minimising it and without blaming others.
- Explain what led to it, such as workload, systems or judgement, and what you have done about each cause.
- Give at least one concrete example of how you now do things differently at work.
- If English is not your first language, focus on clarity rather than polished phrasing; the GPhC’s guidance recognises this.
When to start remediation
Start straight away. Only the most serious cases reach a hearing, and the earlier decisions are made on paper. Your written response is your main chance to show insight, so remediation you have already started is far more useful than promises of future learning.
Keep going after you respond. If your case reaches the Fitness to Practise Committee, the guidance expects evidence of current practice at the impairment stage, and at any review hearing you will need to show that past impairment has been addressed. Add to your evidence steadily, with dates, so that it shows sustained change rather than a burst of activity before a hearing.
Undertakings and warnings at the Investigating Committee
Undertakings are an agreement between the GPhC and you about your future practice. The GPhC’s undertakings guidance, updated in February 2026, says they can be agreed when information shows your fitness to practise is impaired and you admit that it is. Undertakings can include completing training, supervision and practice restrictions. A notice that you have agreed undertakings is placed on the public register.
A warning is a public record that some aspect of your past practice or behaviour was unacceptable. Under the GPhC’s committee warnings guidance, a warning is published on the register and is available for 12 months. The Investigating Committee issues a warning where behaviour cannot be addressed by advice alone.
Both outcomes avoid a full hearing, and both are easier to reach when you can show targeted learning and a clear plan. If you are offered undertakings, ask your adviser to check that you can realistically meet every term before you agree.
Mistakes that weaken a GPhC response
- Sending a bundle of general character references; the GPhC says these are unlikely to be directly relevant to impairment or outcome.
- Holding back remediation evidence until the outcome stage of a hearing, when the guidance says current practice is relevant to impairment.
- Taking generic CPD that does not match the allegation, or listing courses without explaining what changed.
- Agreeing undertakings without a realistic plan to comply; breach can lead to referral back to a committee or a new allegation.
- Writing your response to the GPhC alone, without a defence organisation, union or solicitor checking it first.
Core course
Fitness to Practise for Healthcare Professionals
Our most complete remediation course: 4 CPD hours and 40 scenario questions on impairment, insight, remediation and reflection, with a certificate when you pass.
GPhC remediation: common questions
Are these courses approved by the GPhC?
No. The GPhC does not approve or accredit remediation courses from any provider. Its committees decide how much weight to give the evidence in front of them. Each course comes with a CPD certificate and is designed to help you show learning, insight and reflection on a specific concern, but whether that is enough is always a matter for the GPhC’s decision makers.
Will a course guarantee a good outcome at the GPhC?
No. No course can guarantee an outcome. Committees weigh insight, remediation, seriousness and risk together. For some conduct, such as dishonesty, sexual misconduct or discrimination, the GPhC’s guidance says remediation may carry little weight. A relevant course, with honest reflection and evidence of changed practice, can still help show that the risk of repetition has reduced.
Are these courses suitable for pharmacy technicians?
Yes. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians work to the same Standards for pharmacy professionals, and the GPhC uses the same fitness to practise process for both. Choose courses by the concern rather than the role, then reflect on how the learning applies to your own responsibilities, for example accuracy checking, dispensing or patient counselling.
Should I send remediation evidence before the Investigating Committee meets?
Usually, yes, but take advice first. The Investigating Committee meets in private and decides on the papers, including your written response. Evidence of insight and remediation can affect whether the case is closed, resolved with advice, a warning or undertakings, or referred to a hearing. If you wait, the committee may only see the allegation and the GPhC’s evidence.
What happens at a GPhC review hearing?
If the Fitness to Practise Committee imposes conditions or suspension, it will usually direct a review hearing. At review you are expected to provide evidence that any past impairment has been addressed. The committee can then extend, vary or remove conditions, suspend you, or remove you from the register. A clear, dated record of remediation since the original hearing is essential.
Can I return to the register after removal?
The GPhC says a pharmacy professional who has been removed can only apply to come back onto the register after five years. A restoration application is considered by the Fitness to Practise Committee, which will look closely at what you have done since. Long-term evidence of learning, reflection and good character will matter, and specialist advice is strongly recommended.
What do I get when I buy a course?
Each course is self-paced and available immediately after purchase. Most are 2 CPD hours with 15 multiple choice questions; the Fitness to Practise course is 4 CPD hours with 40 questions. The pass mark is 80%. Every course includes a structured reflective account and a CPD certificate PDF with your name, the course title and the CPD hours.
Official sources
This page was checked against General Pharmaceutical Council guidance in October 2026. Processes and guidance change, so always confirm the current position with the regulator and your adviser. This page is general information, not legal advice.
- GPhC: How we deal with concerns
- GPhC: What the Investigating Committee does
- GPhC: What the Fitness to Practise Committee does
- GPhC: Good decision making: Fitness to practise hearings and outcomes guidance
- GPhC: Good decision making: Investigating committee meetings and outcomes guidance
- GPhC: Undertakings bank and guidance
- GPhC: Committee warnings guidance
- GPhC: Standards for pharmacy professionals