Board inspectors completed 2,833 visits this fiscal year as agency pushes to meet four‑year inspection goal

The Enforcement and Compounding Committee of the California State Board of Pharmacy on June 11 heard an annual report on the board’s inspection program showing 2,833 inspections completed as of May 15, 2025 and a multi‑year target to inspect every licensed pharmacy at least once every four years.

Julie Ansell, deputy executive officer, told the committee the inspections program is intended “simply put, it’s really consumer protection.” She said inspections serve both to assess compliance and to educate licensees, and that the board offers resources such as an “ask an inspector” telephone and email service, a video on how to prepare for an inspection, a pharmacy‑inspection brochure and a board self‑assessment tool.

Ansell gave a breakdown of activity this fiscal year: 2,833 total inspections through May 15, 2025; the board averages about 2,950 inspections annually over five years and expects that number to rise when late‑year data are added. The board assigned roughly 1,550 routine inspections last week to prepare for the 2025–26 fiscal year, she said.

The committee heard that 1,464 routine inspection visits were logged in fiscal year 2024–25 as of May 15 — about 24–25 percent of the licensed pharmacy population. Of the 1,135 true routine inspections (visits made solely for a routine inspection), roughly 46 percent (about 527 pharmacies) had no violations documented on initial visit; another 580 received corrections and 75 received written notices. Ansell cautioned that a single visit can result in multiple outcomes for a location and the numbers do not sum exactly for that reason.

She also reviewed common deficiencies. For chain pharmacies, top corrections included pharmacy operations, display of license and vaccine administration. For nonchain pharmacies, common problems were inventory reconciliation, consultation practices, and operational standards and security. Ansell said some standards (for example, California Code of Regulations section 17.14) cover a wide spectrum of noncompliance — from a dusty shelf to evidence that non‑pharmacists have access to pharmacy keys — and that available remedies and patient‑harm potential differ across that spectrum.

Committee members pressed staff to make inspection outcomes and the difference between “correction” and “written notice” clearer to licensees. Nicole Thiebaud, committee member, asked when a correction becomes a written notice; Ansell said a correction documents a violation that is “noted” and handled by inspector guidance, while a written notice documents a more serious violation that may prompt an investigation or additional action. Members suggested a one‑page handout or a board newsletter article explaining the distinctions and downstream possibilities (education, citation, admonishment or formal discipline).

Chair Maria Serpa asked to expand future presentations to split inspection data by pharmacy license category; members said that finer granularity would help licensees and the public understand where problems cluster. Several board members and commenters praised inspectors for treating inspections as opportunities to educate licensees rather than solely as punitive events.

The committee did not take action on the inspection program; the presentation was for information and follow‑up requests. Members asked staff to prepare next year’s presentation with breakdowns by license category and to provide clearer public education about the difference between corrections, written notices and subsequent disciplinary steps.

Ending: The committee thanked field staff for completing assigned inspections and affirmed the ongoing goal of inspecting every pharmacy at least once every four years.