The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has reminded pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and pharmacy owners of the importance of maintaining indemnity arrangements that accurately reflect the work they carry out. As clinical services expand and supervision models evolve, the regulator is seeing more cases where indemnity cover does not match day‑to‑day practice, creating avoidable risk for both individuals and pharmacy businesses.

Under Article 32 of the Pharmacy Order 2010, all registrants and pharmacy owners must have appropriate indemnity arrangements in place. The GPhC emphasises that “appropriate” means cover that aligns with the actual activities being undertaken, not simply what is written in a job description or assumed from a traditional role. Indemnity may be provided by an employer, a professional body, a defence organisation or a combination of these, but none of these arrangements will protect registrants if the policy does not explicitly cover the services they now provide.

The regulator notes that changes in supervision requirements and the rapid expansion of clinical services are creating gaps in cover. Many registrants are now involved in prescribing, using PGDs, undertaking undifferentiated clinical assessments, providing remote consultations or taking on expanded supervisory responsibilities. If these activities are not clearly included in indemnity documentation, both registrants and pharmacy owners may be exposed to financial, operational and regulatory consequences.

To reduce this risk, the GPhC advises registrants and employers to regularly review job descriptions and compare them with actual practice, ensuring that indemnity policies explicitly cover all current activities. Any changes in roles, responsibilities or service models should be communicated to indemnity providers, and pharmacy owners should confirm the extent of employer cover, particularly for locums, and consider whether contingent indemnity is required. The regulator also highlights the importance of keeping written evidence of role changes, training and competency assessments, and ensuring that staff have the necessary skills and accredited training to work within their scope of practice and GPhC standards.

Although the GPhC’s update focuses on safe and effective practice, indemnity gaps can also have implications for regulatory processes. Where a pharmacist or pharmacy technician undertakes work outside the scope of their indemnity, or where a pharmacy owner has not ensured appropriate cover, concerns may escalate into fitness to practise or inspection‑related issues, especially if patient safety is affected. This reinforces the need for robust governance, clear documentation and proactive oversight within pharmacy settings.

Implications for all UK healthcare regulators

Although Masih is an NMC case, its significance is not confined to nursing and midwifery.

The underlying principles concerning regulatory procedure, delay, proportionality and the continuing justification for interim restrictions are relevant across professional regulation. They may therefore have implications for professionals regulated by the General Medical Council, General Dental Council, Health and Care Professions Council, General Pharmaceutical Council and other UK healthcare regulators.

The precise statutory powers and procedures differ between regulators, so Masih does not establish an identical legal test for every regulator. However, the judgement provides an important indication of the level of scrutiny a regulator can face when seeking to maintain restrictions on a professional while a fitness to practise case remains unresolved.

For doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists and other regulated professionals, the practical message is the same: a regulator cannot assume that an interim order will simply be extended, particularly where there has been significant delay in progressing the underlying fitness to practise case.

Expert fitness to practise defence

Kings View Chambers – Expert GMC Defence Barristers is one of the UK’s leading specialist fitness to practise defence teams. Its barristers work exclusively in regulatory law and have extensive experience in GMC investigations, employer referrals, cross-border issues and appeals. Early legal advice can be critical in developing strategy, managing communications and ensuring remediation and insight are properly evidenced.

Insight Works Training provides targeted remediation, insight development, reflective practice support and behavioural change programmes for professionals facing complaints or regulatory scrutiny.

The key message from Masih is clear: an interim order should not become a substitute for progressing a fitness to practise case, and regulated professionals should not assume that a regulator’s application to extend an interim order will necessarily succeed.