| · Drug donations
· CAM
· Pharmacy in Scotland
· Community pharmacy
· Prescribing
· Prosecution
· New contract (2)
· CPD
· Registration exam (2)
· Barcodes
· Retention fee (2)
· New Year's resolutions
· The Society
· The Journal (2)
Letters to the Editor
|
Registration exam
Excessive, but necessary all the same
From Mr J. Gilbody
I am a preregistration trainee approaching the half-way point of my
year and I have been intrigued by the different opinions about the registration
examination expressed in the PJ recently.
I, too, think that a registration examination seems excessive after studying
a four-year degree, and that more emphasis should be placed during the
degree on the practical and more relevant side of pharmacy. I do, however,
believe that the examination is necessary.
I appreciate that some of the paper is dedicated to using references
such as the BNF, and this may make it appear to be too academic. But
after my experiences with the recent mock examination, many of the questions
seemed to require some level of practical thought. It seemed to be a
collection of facts and theory thrown into everyday scenarios that should
not be too daunting to the average pharmacist.
In response to some pharmacists’ opinions that the examination
does not cover the practical aspects of the profession, I was under the
impression that the tutor and the everyday problems thrown at trainees
were meant to be some kind of test, too. After all, without a written
statement from the tutor, the examination may not be sat. Perhaps the
tutor should take some of the responsibility for allowing a failed trainee
to sit the examination in the first place.
I do believe that passing the degree course, regardless of the master’s
qualification, does not mean that one is ready to be a pharmacist. I
do not think it should be assumed that academic ability is proportional
to practical capability. To believe it condescending to be made to resit
the examination after failing, even if one has attained a pharmacy degree,
is not realistic.
Like most of my fellow trainees, I am a little apprehensive of the examination
in June. I appreciate that failing initially is not impossible, and that
nerves and simple mistakes may be the cause. But, failure to pass the
examination even at the second attempt must potentially indicate that
although an individual is academically adept, his or her ability to think
on their feet and handle everyday problems, with the attitude that will
be required of them in their professional life, may be lacking.
What must be remembered is that the examination is not designed to fail
graduates. We must not assume that the examiners are setting questions
that are impractical, impossible and meant to trick us. The questions
are set to ensure that trainees have attained the appropriate standards
of ethics and professionalism in order to ensure that efforts to raise
continually the profile of pharmacists are successful.
Justin Gilbody
Tibshelf, Derbyshire
Flawed, but necessary
From Mr R. Sinclair, MRPharmS
I find myself in the strange position of defending an examination that
I have previously criticised. The registration examination is flawed
and provokes considerable frustration among tutors who put in a significant
effort over each year in ensuring their trainees reach appropriate standards
only to find that as a result of a single three-minute calculation going
wrong in the examination, a trainee who is considered more than competent
needs to resit the examination during a period of possibly several months
of doubtful employment.
The responsibility placed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society on a tutor
is considerable yet, despite this, there is no Society consultation with
tutors over borderline examination results, especially those due to single
calculation errors, which, in my experience, occur quite frequently.
Clear cases of failing the examination are usually not due simply to
calculations, but considerable lack of knowledge in other key areas of
the syllabus and here a resit is probably appropriate and would be supported
by tutors. I have asked several times where a tutor would stand, and
what support would be available, should any trainee legally challenge
a tutor’s assessment that they are not yet ready to register. I
have received no satisfactory answer to this question. Tutors can spend
nine to 12 months carefully making that assessment only for it to be
blocked with no discussion at all by an error in an examination.
An ability to understand basic mathematical concepts is essential and
perhaps these would be better developed and tested within the pharmacy
degree course. However, as we continue to encounter a poor level of mathematical
understanding at postgraduate level, it is right at present to test or
examine mathematical ability in some way. A similar issue is that, as
tutors, we are expected to assess the ability to communicate in English.
I question how one can achieve a bachelor’s degree in pharmacy
(or equivalent) without such an ability. Yet people do each year and
tutors regularly need to ensure such skills are subsequently acquired.
Multiple choice questions do not allow for an accurate assessment of
ability to communicate in English; maybe the registration examination
should incorporate the essentials for testing this perhaps more important
and essential standard as well.
Although I think the examination or, perhaps more correctly, how the
examination is implemented and the results applied, is flawed, I believe
that it provides a necessary function and that it would be more appropriate
to identify a more constructive way of examining or testing both mathematical
and core pharmaceutical knowledge and standards within both the degree
itself and the preregistration year rather than to scrap the examination
in its entirety.
Roy Sinclair
New Malden, Surrey
|
The
Pharmaceutical Journal