The UK cold chain statistic that refuses to go away

What it reveals about gel packs and hidden risk

Every year, UK pharmaceutical quality reviews surface a familiar finding.

Temperature excursions remain one of the most common causes of GDP deviations and product investigations across pharmaceutical distribution.

It is a statistic most procurement managers have encountered before. It appears in audit summaries, deviation reviews, and internal reports. Familiar enough to be almost expected. Persistent enough to deserve attention.

When an issue shows up repeatedly across years, suppliers, and logistics models, it is rarely random. It usually points to a pressure point that has quietly become normalised.

Where the conversation usually begins

In practice, this topic rarely starts with gel packs.

It begins with a shipment that arrives just outside range. A temperature trace that looks acceptable until the final leg. A product that technically survives the journey but raises enough concern to trigger an investigation.

The early questions are predictable. Was there a delay? Was handling correct? Did ambient conditions spike?

Only later does attention shift to the shipper configuration. And eventually, to the gel packs inside it.

By that point, the answers are often less clear. Not because anything is obviously wrong, but because those components have not been closely examined for some time.

When reliable becomes assumed

Gel packs do their job quietly.

They are validated, approved, and then reused across routes, seasons, and product types. Over time, distribution patterns change. Lead times extend. Last-mile exposure increases. Product sensitivity tightens.

The gel pack remains unchanged.

In the UK, many temperature excursions are not the result of dramatic failures. They happen in the margins. During small delays. At the tail end of a journey. Under conditions that were not fully replicated during original testing.

In these scenarios, gel packs are rarely blamed outright. But they are often part of the explanation.

Why this statistic still matters

UK pharmaceutical supply chains are generally robust.

GDP standards are embedded. Audit processes are mature. Data logging is routine. That makes the persistence of temperature excursions more telling, not less.

It suggests that risk is sitting in the grey areas. In assumptions that no longer match operational reality.

Gel packs sit squarely in that space. Often selected for headline performance, rather than for how they behave when journeys stretch or conditions drift away from the ideal.

Consistency, predictability, and repeatability become more important than peak performance. Especially at the end of the journey, where excursions are most likely to occur.

A shift in how procurement teams are thinking

Across the UK pharma sector, procurement teams are starting to ask different questions.

Not whether a gel pack can hold temperature in perfect conditions, but how it behaves when things are less controlled.

What happens if a shipment sits longer than planned?
How does performance vary across seasons?
Is batch-to-batch behaviour genuinely consistent?
Can the supplier support quality discussions, not just commercial ones?

These questions reflect a more mature approach to risk. One focused on reducing variability rather than chasing theoretical best-case performance.

The operational cost of familiar problems

Each temperature deviation sets off a chain of activity.

Quality teams investigate. Procurement reassesses suppliers. Logistics teams review routes. Senior stakeholders want assurance that controls are in place.

Even when product is released, the effort required to reach that decision is significant.

Repeated issues create friction. Not just in processes, but in confidence. Over time, teams begin to question whether systems that appear compliant are truly resilient.

This is where the statistic becomes tangible. It translates directly into time, cost, and internal pressure.

A quieter approach to reducing risk

At Thergis, we spend a lot of time in these conversations.

Often with procurement and quality teams who want clarity rather than disruption. The focus is rarely on changing everything. It is on understanding where small, overlooked variables are carrying disproportionate risk.

Sometimes the conclusion is that the current solution is sound. Sometimes minor adjustments make a meaningful difference. Occasionally, a different approach is required.

All of those outcomes reduce uncertainty.

What this statistic is really telling us

The continued prevalence of temperature excursions in UK pharma is not a failure of process. It is a reminder that cold chains evolve, even when components stay the same.

The most resilient procurement strategies are not reactive. They are reflective.

They revisit assumptions. They ask calm, informed questions. And they pay attention to the quietest parts of the system.

Because in pharmaceutical logistics, the biggest risks rarely announce themselves loudly.

They tend to arrive slowly. Repeatedly. And in places no one thought to look.