GPhC remediation courses for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians

Start from the concern as it is actually written in the GPhC letter or the allegation, not from a general sense of what might help. The table matches common pharmacy concerns to the courses most directly relevant to them. Pick from the first two or three in the row before adding anything else.

If your concern does not fit neatly into one row, use the which course do I need tool. It asks a few questions and suggests a short list. For concerns that cross several areas, the remediation pathway explains how to plan learning, reflection and evidence in order.

The GPhC publishes the guidance its committees use. Two documents matter most for remediation:

• Good decision making: investigations threshold criteria guidance (updated October 2025). The registrar uses it once an investigation has finished to decide whether a case should go to the Investigating Committee.
• Good decision making: Fitness to practise hearings and outcomes guidance (March 2024). The Fitness to Practise Committee uses it at hearings and reviews.

The Investigating Committee has its own guidance, Good decision making: Investigating Committee meetings and outcomes guidance. Undertakings are drawn from the GPhC undertakings bank (February 2026).

At the end of an investigation

When the registrar applies the threshold criteria, the factors include whether you acted with openness and honesty, whether you have learnt from the incident and whether you have taken remedial action, for example by undertaking training or changing your practice. Previous advice on similar matters is also considered. This is the earliest point at which relevant, well-evidenced learning can be taken into account, so it pays to start early rather than wait for a hearing date.

At a hearing

The hearings guidance calls insight and remediation key factors. It describes insight as being able to accept and understand that you should have behaved differently, and remediation as the steps you take so it does not happen again. Insight should be genuine and visible in what you did after the incident, not only in what you say at the hearing. Committees look at whether the conduct can be addressed, whether it has been addressed and whether it is likely to be repeated. They also ask whether a finding of impairment is needed to uphold standards and public confidence in pharmacy, even where the risk to patients is low.

Impairment is judged as at the date of the hearing, not as at the date of the incident. That is why evidence of what you have done since matters so much. The guidance lists factors such as an actual or potential risk to patients or the public, bringing the profession into disrepute, breaching a fundamental principle of the profession and integrity that can no longer be relied upon.

Where training carries less weight

The guidance is frank that some conduct, such as discrimination or sexual misconduct, may be treated as not remediable, so insight and remediation may count for little. Dishonesty is treated as serious because it damages trust, but there is no automatic presumption of removal. Training will not fix a probity concern by itself; the committee will look for an honest account and a clear change in how you behave.

Testimonials and apologies

Testimonials count most when they speak to your remediation, insight or remorse, and when the author knows the facts of the case. General character references are described as unlikely to be directly relevant. Apologies and candid explanations are positive steps. The guidance also asks committees to take account of cultural differences, communicating in a second language, neurodiversity and disability when judging how regret is expressed.

Decision makers look for a joined-up story: what happened, what you understand now, what you learnt and what has changed. Keep these together in one folder, dated:

• Certificates of completion for each course, with a note of why you chose it and how it connects to the allegation.
• Reflective accounts in your own words for each course, covering the impact on patients, colleagues and trust in pharmacy. The reflective statement builder gives you GPhC-specific prompts and keeps the writing yours.
• Practice changes: revised SOPs, new checking steps, audit results, supervision notes or records of peer discussion.
• Testimonials from people who know about the concern and have seen you work since. The testimonial request generator drafts a request that asks referees to address the right points.
• Context, such as workload, staffing or health factors, kept factual and separate from your reflection, so it does not read as an excuse.

Before you send anything, run the remediation readiness check. It shows gaps in your evidence before a decision maker spots them.

Healthcare Practise UK is an independent education provider. We are not affiliated with, and our courses are not approved or endorsed by, the GPhC or any other regulator. Completing a course does not decide any outcome; the registrar and the GPhC committees make their own decisions on all of the evidence.

Courses do not replace legal or professional advice. If the GPhC has contacted you, speak to your professional indemnity provider, a pharmacy defence organisation, your union or a solicitor before you send a written response or representations. Where a concern relates to your health, the courses are not designed to address it; your adviser and your GP or occupational health service are the right starting points.