Registration of overseas pharmacists
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society's Adjudicating Committee is responsible for setting registration requirements for overseas pharmacists wishing to work in Britain (other than those from the European Union or certain other countries whose qualifications are automatically recognised). At the Council meeting on 30 September, the committee's chairman, Linda
Stone, explained procedures recently introduced to streamline the committee's operations Mrs Stone said that when she became its chairman in June the Adjudicating
Committee decided to review its policies and procedures, which had not
been re-examined for some time.
The committee made certain assumptions in its deliberation, the first
being that patient safety was paramount. The only fixed point of assured
quality of pharmacists was the point of registration, where everyone
should be equivalent. The standard criteria for registration were the
four-year accredited MPharm degree, plus a performance standard preregistration
year and the registration examination. The committee needed to base its
decisions on those constants.
The committee was concerned about the imprecise nature of interviews,
particularly considering applicants’ diverse backgrounds, their
nervousness, their varying ability to communicate in English (particularly
when nervous), their comfort with the use of English at the point of
interview, the subjective nature of interviews and the limited time available
for each interview.
The committee was concerned that its decisions should be transparent,
consistent and fair to applicants. For example, it was not fair to allow
an applicant to sit the registration examination if he was almost certain
to fail.
The committee asked itself many questions, such as how it could assess
the prime qualification, who needed to be interviewed and how the committee
could ensure candidates achieved the criteria for entry. Could the committee
consider the pharmacy-relevant postgraduate qualifications possessed
by some applicants?
What was the prime qualification
The committee was also concerned about candidates’ level of English.
Even though not all patients spoke English, it was the language of the
National Health Service and the language used by other health care practitioners.
Looking at the prime qualification, the committee had to adopt what was
simple and readily achievable. In the past it had relied on a summary
transcript from the academic institution at which the applicant had trained
to give an indication of appropriate content for the degree. To look
at the specific curriculum delivered to each candidate as a student was
totally impractical. In any case, many applicants from developing countries
would not be able to obtain that information from the university, particularly
if they had graduated more than four or five years previously.
The academic transcript, while verifying the award given by the university,
does not indicate the level of attainment when compared to a UK degree.
Consequently, the committee also looked to the National Academic Recognition
Information Centre for the United Kingdom (UK NARIC), which is an independent
organisation that benchmarks the level of overseas qualifications. Most
UK universities used it in deciding whether someone was eligible for
a postgraduate course or for research at master’s level. The committee
considered UK NARIC to be an appropriate benchmark, widely available.
It gave information either on a countrywide basis or on an institutional
basis. Some advice was time specific — for example, it might say
that a qualification had only been equivalent to a degree since 1995.
The committee had also considered that success in the International English
Language Testing System, at academic level 7, in reading, writing, listening
and speaking was essential, being equivalent to the requirement of other
health care regulators. It meant that applicants were competent in English
and should be able to cope with anything they had to do academically
or in practice.
The committee had then considered the appropriateness of the interview.
It believed that interview should be by exception and only when a good
interview could benefit an applicant. An interview was essential for
those with incomplete documentation — usually refugees.
Applicants considered by the Adjudicating Committee to be eligible would
have to complete an overseas pharmacists (OSP) assessment programme,
undertake preregistration training under the same conditions as a UK
graduate and sit the registration examination. There would be no exceptions
to that, given that the context of health care practice in Britain differed
from most other countries, as did the legal and ethical considerations.
The OSP assessment programme tries to be flexible, recognising candidates’ achievements
and practice experience by accrediting prior learning. To enter the programme,
candidates must have the equivalent of a bachelor’s level degree.
Within the programme they have to demonstrate that they achieved the
same master’s level criteria as UK graduates — the critical
skills crucial to the development of pharmacy and the provision of health
care.
Answering questions, Mrs Stone said that to have enhanced validity the
programme would be a normal one-year master’s level postgraduate
diploma. Accreditation of prior learning might result in exemption from
taught elements of the programme, but there would be no exemptions from
the assessments.
Asked whether an applicant with a PharmD could obtain exemption from
the taught elements, Mrs Stone said that PharmDs appeared to be taught
at bachelor’s level. The accreditation of prior learning would
determine whether the applicant merited some exemption. If UK NARIC advised
that an applicant had achieved a master’s level first qualification,
it might look at the qualification differently, but so far that advice
had not been given about any application.
The programme had to incorporate the elements of law, practice and ethics
that UK graduates did throughout the course. These could be assessed
at master’s level. The other elements frequently missing with overseas
applicants were clinical pharmacology and therapeutics and obviously
the new roles within the UK. It was also important that the programme
prepared candidates for preregistration training.
To be eligible to deliver the course, a university had to be a provider
of an accredited MPharm programme, because some of the modules could
be common with that programme. The provider had to demonstrate to the
Society how the programme matched the Society’s graduate criteria
and offer continuity of course provision.
The rules would not be changed for applicants already in the system who
had been given different conditions. But if they did not satisfy the
conditions within the time frame given to them and chose to reapply they
would fall within the new conditions.
New requirement applied since June
The new requirements had been applied since June. Anyone who came to
the committee now would have the opportunity of starting in September
2004 or 2005. If they could not start by September 2005, they would
have to reapply. Anyone who came to the committee in June 2004 would
be given the opportunity to start in 2005 and 2006 if they were unable
to start in September 2004.
The committee had thought about the accreditation of courses outside
the UK, but there were so many universities from which applicants graduated
that the logistics would be impossible.
Asked what numbers she was talking about, Mrs Stone said that in June
the committee had cleared about 150 applicants who were eligible to proceed
under the old procedure but it was impossible to predict prospective
numbers.
The committee made it clear there were no guarantees of a place on an
OSP assessment programme or a preregistration place.
She hoped that about three schools of pharmacy would offer the programme.
A master’s level diploma would be of value to the university as
postgraduate diplomas are frequently considered to be income-
generating.
|
