Aipedia: Pharmacists and pharmacies

The GPhC position statement on AI, explained

Aipedia, by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-10-30

The GPhC's April 2026 position statement says existing standards apply whenever AI is used and that pharmacy professionals remain personally accountable. It is the reference point an inspector, a fitness-to-practise panel or a claimant's expert is likely to use.

Part of: AI in pharmacists and pharmacies

In short

The General Pharmaceutical Council published its position statement on the use of AI in pharmacy on 20 April 2026. It does not create new standards. Instead it says the Standards for pharmacy professionals and the Standards for registered pharmacies apply at all times, including when using AI. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians remain personally accountable, must understand and check the tools they use, and must tell patients about AI use. Owners and superintendents must carry out due diligence, govern and monitor tools and train staff. Using AI to write or falsify revalidation submissions may be investigated. The statement does not mention indemnity.

What the GPhC published and when

The position statement was published on 20 April 2026, as reported by Chemist+Druggist. It is the GPhC's first statement on AI. Alongside it the GPhC published a separate document on the use of AI in education and training. The statement covers pharmacy practice, revalidation, and education and training, and gives diagnosis and prescribing, clinical checks, operational tasks and transcribing patient notes as examples.

Its legal status matters. The statement is not a new rulebook. It explains how existing, enforceable standards apply. So a breach is still measured against those standards, and the GPhC says it will keep them under review. It does not regulate AI products; it notes that the MHRA regulates AI that is a medical device.

Personal accountability

The central line is that pharmacists and pharmacy technicians "remain personally accountable" for decisions. They must be able to justify a decision and show their professional judgement, and AI should not replace clinical decision-making. In practice this means an AI recommendation is an input to your judgement, not a defence to a complaint.

Duties on individual registrants

The statement sets out these duties for individual pharmacists and pharmacy technicians:

Understand each tool's intended use, limitations and biases.
Be trained to use it.
Check outputs for accuracy, bias and misleading content before relying on them.
Protect confidentiality and data.
Explain AI use to patients, including risks and benefits, and seek consent where necessary.
Raise concerns, in line with the duty of candour.
Never use AI in a way that risks harm.

Separate duties for owners and superintendents

Owners and superintendent pharmacists are tied to the Standards for registered pharmacies. They must carry out due diligence on a tool's safety and suitability, put governance in place (risk assessment, data security, information governance), train staff and monitor tools routinely as part of quality and risk management. The GPhC says compliance can be examined on inspection. See AI governance for pharmacy owners.

The revalidation warning

Using AI to create full revalidation submissions, or to falsify information, is described as inappropriate and may be investigated. Limited, transparent use is acceptable. See using AI for revalidation records.

Mapping the statement to the nine standards

Standard	How it applies to AI
1. Person-centred care	AI must not be used in a way that risks harm
2. Partnership with others	Working with colleagues and owners on safe tool use
3. Communicate effectively	Telling patients about AI use and seeking consent where necessary
4. Knowledge and skills	Understanding tools, training, checking outputs
5. Professional judgement	Not deferring to AI; being able to justify decisions
6. Professional behaviour	Honest use, including in revalidation
7. Confidentiality and privacy	Patient data entered into AI tools
8. Speak up	Reporting AI errors and concerns; candour
9. Leadership	Setting safe practice for teams using AI

The mapping above is Apex's reading of how the statement's duties sit against the Standards for pharmacy professionals.

What it means in practice

For an individual pharmacist, the statement turns into a short set of habits that would also help defend a claim:

Know which systems in your workflow use AI, including features built into the PMR or e-prescribing system.
Keep evidence of training on the tools you use.
Record your own reasoning when you accept or override an AI recommendation in a significant decision.
Do not enter identifiable patient data into tools your employer or owner has not approved.
Tell patients when AI shapes their care, and record any objection.
Report errors and near misses so the owner can monitor the tool.

For owners, it means written due diligence and risk assessments that an inspector can test.

The wider regulatory picture

In February 2026 the GPhC joined five other regulators in a joint statement on AI in professional education: providers should be transparent, learners stay responsible for their work, and assessment integrity must be protected. On 17 September 2026 the PSA, the ten regulators it oversees (including the GPhC) and the Accredited Registers Collaborative signed a Joint Statement of Intent on AI, committing to develop UK-wide principles and a coordinated response to the National Commission. No timetable has been given. The Pharmaceutical Society of Northern Ireland regulates pharmacy in Northern Ireland and is not covered here.

What it means for indemnity

The statement says nothing about indemnity. Article 32 of the Pharmacy Order still requires cover appropriate to your risks, and AI use is part of your scope of practice. A fitness-to-practise case about AI use is a regulatory matter, which state schemes do not cover; see regulatory investigation cover, does pharmacist indemnity cover AI and the pharmacy AI hub.

How Apex helps

Apex arranges indemnity for pharmacists and pharmacy owners. A broker checks that your declared scope of practice reflects the AI tools you use and how your policy responds to a regulatory investigation.

Sources

Frequently asked

Is the GPhC AI position statement binding?

It does not create new standards, but it explains how the existing, binding standards apply to AI. A concern about AI use would be judged against the Standards for pharmacy professionals or the Standards for registered pharmacies, so in practice it should be treated as how the GPhC will read those standards.

Do I have to tell patients I am using AI?

The statement says pharmacists should explain AI use to patients, including risks and benefits, and seek consent where necessary. That fits Standard 3 on communication. Where and how you tell patients will depend on the tool and setting.

Does the statement apply to pharmacy technicians?

Yes. It says pharmacists and pharmacy technicians remain personally accountable when using AI, and the same duties to understand tools, check outputs and protect confidentiality apply to both.

Can I use AI for my revalidation?

Limited, transparent use is acceptable, such as help with structure or wording. Using AI to create full revalidation submissions, or to falsify information, is described as inappropriate and may be investigated by the GPhC.

Check your PI covers how you use AI

Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.

Start a PI quote Request a callback

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.