Traditional vs Forward Dispensing: Which Layout Works for Your Pharmacy?
Before a single bench is drawn, every pharmacy fitout starts with one decision that shapes everything else: how visible should dispensing be to the patient standing at the counter. That choice, traditional dispensing or forward dispensing, determines your floor plan, your staff workflow, how automation fits in later, and how the space feels to walk into. Get it wrong and you are either rebuilding a dispensary you have outgrown or living with a layout that never suited how your pharmacy actually operates.
This is not a decision to make from a template. It depends on your patient volume, your script mix, whether you are chasing retail sales or specialising in complex dispensing, and whether automation is part of your plans now or later. Here is what separates the two models, what each means for your layout, and the factors worth weighing before you commit.
What Traditional and Forward Dispensing Actually Mean
Traditional dispensing keeps the dispensary set back from the retail floor, typically behind or to the side of the service counter. The pharmacist and dispensing staff work largely out of the patient's direct line of sight, with the counter acting as the single point of contact for handover and consultation. This remains the more common arrangement in Australian community pharmacy, particularly in higher-volume sites where separating the dispensing workflow from customer-facing retail keeps both running smoothly.
Forward dispensing brings the dispensary towards the front of the store, with the bench open to the retail floor rather than screened off. The point is direct interaction: the pharmacist can talk to the patient face to face while the script is being prepared, rather than the patient waiting at a counter for a finished script to appear from somewhere out of sight. It is more common in newer fitouts and in pharmacies positioning themselves around patient trust and a modern retail experience.
Neither model is inherently better. They solve different problems, and the right one depends on what your pharmacy needs to prioritise.
How Each Model Shapes Your Dispensary Layout
A traditional layout generally needs a deeper, more enclosed dispensing zone with dedicated staff circulation that does not cross public areas. This gives dispensing staff room to manage script queues, handle interruptions, and move between compounding or checking stations without navigating around customers. Consultation happens at the counter or in a separate private area, which also makes it easier to manage a busy retail floor independently of dispensary throughput.
A forward layout compresses that distance. The dispensary becomes part of the customer experience rather than a back-of-house function, which means sightlines, finishes, and even noise all need to be considered as part of the retail design, not just the operational one. Bench positioning has to balance staff efficiency with what is visible from the front of the store, and script handover points typically sit closer to point of sale.
A forward layout needs more careful handling on one point specifically: pharmacy premises regulation still requires the dispensary to function as a private, dedicated and secure area, so an open or glazed bench has to achieve that transparency without compromising patient privacy or record security. This is a design and compliance balance, not a reason to avoid forward dispensing, but it does mean the two models are not equally straightforward to get right. It is a concern we hear directly from pharmacists weighing up the two models: being watched while dispensing can feel like added pressure. Getting the layout right, including where that private station sits, is what determines whether that pressure becomes a real problem or not. In Victoria, VPA guidance reflects this directly: a pharmacy built around forward dispensing should also keep at least one additional dispensing station that is not accessible to the public, not a separate private room, just one station positioned out of public view for the tasks that do not belong in the open part of the layout.
Once the underlying model is settled, day-to-day workflow decisions such as bench sequencing and staff routing shape how efficiently the space runs. We cover that separately in our guide to pharmacy dispensary workflow and layout.
Whichever model you choose, both still need to accommodate secure, compliant storage for scheduled medicines, a private area for patient consultations, and enough bench length for your actual script volume. The layout style changes where and how these elements sit, not whether they are required.
Regulatory Considerations for Both Models
In Victoria, registering pharmacy premises requires demonstrating to the Victorian Pharmacy Authority that the premises are suitable for the provision of pharmacy services under the Pharmacy Regulation Act 2010. The VPA assesses a scaled floor plan against the Act, its Schedule, and the VPA Standards together, with the Schedule setting out matters including layout, hygiene, temperature control, security and access. The VPA has released sample floor plans showing the elements it expects to see addressed, and is explicit that no single layout is preferred. This applies regardless of whether you choose a traditional or forward dispensing model. Each other state and territory has its own premises regulator with its own specific requirements, some of which differ materially. NSW, for example, sets a minimum dispensing area that Victoria does not. For pharmacies opening outside Victoria, DY32 confirms your state's specific requirements early in the design process, rather than assuming they mirror Victoria's.
A separate process sits alongside premises registration if you are opening a new pharmacy or relocating an existing one. The Australian Community Pharmacy Authority considers applications and recommends whether a location should be approved to supply PBS medicines, with the final approval issued separately under the National Health Act 1953. A floor plan is standard supporting evidence for that application, alongside lease documents and evidence addressing the distance requirements between pharmacies. ACPA's own guidance calls for a scaled, drafted floor plan rather than a hand-drawn sketch, which is one of several reasons pharmacy owners engage a designer for this stage rather than preparing the plan themselves.
We cover the full compliance picture, including Schedule 8 storage and building classification, in our guide to pharmacy design compliance in Australia. The point worth making here is narrower: your dispensing model choice needs to be resolved before that floor plan is finalised, not adjusted around it after the fact.
Designing for Dispensing Automation
Pharmacies in both traditional and forward layouts are increasingly incorporating dispensing robots and automated packing systems as script volumes grow. Systems from manufacturers such as BD Rowa, Meditech, and others are all established in the Australian market, and none of them dictate a single correct dispensary layout. As an independent design firm, DY32 designs the space to suit whichever system a pharmacy chooses, rather than the other way around.
What automation does change is how early certain decisions need to be made. Robot footprint, clearance for loading and servicing, power and data provisions, and floor loading all need to be built into the design from the outset. These are the kind of provisions that are straightforward and cost-effective to plan for at design stage, and considerably more expensive to retrofit once a fitout is complete.
This matters whether or not you are installing automation on day one. A pharmacy planning to add a dispensing robot within a few years is better served by a layout that leaves room for it now than one that assumes it will never happen.
Which Layout Is Right for Your Pharmacy?
There is no formula that outputs the right answer, but a few factors consistently drive the decision. Patient volume and script throughput matter most: a high-volume site often benefits from the operational separation a traditional layout provides, while a lower-volume pharmacy competing on customer experience may get more value from the transparency of forward dispensing. Staff numbers and how much dedicated dispensing support you have on the floor also shape which model is workable.
Retail pressure is another factor. A pharmacy relying heavily on front-of-store retail sales alongside dispensing has different sightline and circulation needs to one operating a lower-retail, dispensing-focused model or specialising in complex or compounded scripts. Whether automation is planned now or later, and the physical constraints of your existing premises or new site, round out the picture.
None of these factors work in isolation, which is why this decision benefits from a proper design consultation rather than being locked in from a generic floor plan. The layout that works for the pharmacy down the road may not be the right fit for yours.
Getting the dispensing model right before the floor plan is finalised avoids the far more expensive problem of retrofitting a layout that never suited how your pharmacy actually works. If you are planning a new pharmacy, a relocation, or a dispensary refit, DY32 designs pharmacy dispensary layouts around how your business actually operates, not a template. Get in touch to talk through what your pharmacy needs.
-
Traditional dispensing sets the dispensary back from the retail floor, with staff working largely out of the patient's line of sight and a counter acting as the point of contact. Forward dispensing brings the dispensary towards the front of the store with an open bench, removing the physical barrier so the pharmacist can talk directly to the patient while the script is being prepared. Both are established models in Australian pharmacy, and the right one depends on patient volume, retail focus, and how your pharmacy operates day to day.
-
It is possible, but the feasibility depends heavily on your existing footprint, services provisions, and shopfront layout. Moving the dispensary forward often affects plumbing, electrical, and structural elements that were designed around the original configuration, and any significant alteration to registered premises needs VPA approval before the work goes ahead, not just after. A design assessment of the existing premises is the right starting point before assuming either direction is straightforward.
-
It depends on the system and your available floor area, and this is exactly the kind of question that needs answering during design rather than after a fitout is complete. Robot footprints vary considerably between manufacturers, and factors like clearance for loading, servicing access, and floor loading all affect what is workable in a given space.
-
Not necessarily, but flagging that automation is a future possibility early lets your designer build in the provisions, such as power, data, and clearance, that make adding a system later straightforward rather than disruptive. Deciding on automation after a fitout is finished is the scenario that leads to costly retrofit work.
-
The VPA requires a scaled floor plan demonstrating that the premises are suitable for the provision of pharmacy services, addressing matters including layout, hygiene, temperature control, security and access, and confirming the dispensary functions as a private, dedicated and secure area. It does not prescribe a single correct dispensing model, but a forward-dispensing design needs to satisfy that privacy requirement without relying on a closed-off room to do it.
-
ACPA considers applications and recommends whether a location should be approved to supply PBS medicines, and a scaled, professionally drafted floor plan is part of that application alongside lease and distance evidence. It is a separate process to premises registration, but both rely on the same underlying floor plan being accurate and considered from the outset.
