| · Adverse events
· Supermarket pharmacy
· Research
· Regulation of medicines
· OTC statins
· Pricing (2)
· Pharmacy practice
· CPD
· Reciprocity
· Registration examination
· Veterinary pharmacy
· The Society
· Birdsgrove House (5)
Letters to the Editor
|
Registration examination
Not convinced
From Mr S. I. Dajani, MRPharmS
I was interested to read about the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s
rationale for retaining
the registration examination (PJ, 18 June,
p774), but was more interested in what was omitted. The main purpose for
the examination
is to “safeguard the well-being of the public by complementing the
testing of trainees’ skills in practice”. What is lacking is
the vital evidence base that shows people who have passed the examination
are more competent than those who qualified before it was introduced. I
am sure if such evidence existed it would have been brought to the fore
by now and if such evidence was forthcoming, I am sure all the preregistration
students from other health care professions would also have to sit an examination.
Section 60 would not only recognise it but would make it mandatory. I am
aware that the teachers’ profession has withdrawn the examination,
the General Medical Council does not want it and the drafts of section
60 that I have seen do not force the Society to retain the examination.
The well-detailed astringent testing does not inspire me to believe that
the existence of the examination is warranted or that it is an essential
element of public protection, as there is no relationship between activity
and achievement. For a start all the listed attributes that the examination
is supposed to deliver could still be incorporated in the degree and what
could not is a small fraction that could be tested through Objective Structured
Clinical Examinations (OSCEs). Ultimately the examination tests time-keeping
skills and not competency; competency for those qualified is linked to
continuing professional development and this formulaic mechanism can easily
be adapted during the preregistration year to ascertain their competency
in order to qualify. Theoretical scenarios and timescales — as in
an examination situation — are too artificial and unrealistic. I
sat the examination and the registration examination carried as much relevance
to my working practices as learning how to ride a unicycle has to dispensing.
Real scenarios are not strictly time sensitive, people do not fail if they
do not understand the question as they simply request clarification, they
can seek help if they need it and if they make a mistake they can rectify
it because they know where they went wrong and stop it happening again.
None of these real competency issues is addressed by the examination.
In light of the above, the registration examination merely exists to provide
jobs, belittles our degree, concentrates on the means not the ends and
provides the perfect answer for the wrong question. I cannot help but feel
that the Society allows us to penalise our own but allows language-challenged
pharmacists to practise freely. In an ideal world we should set examinations
for the examiners and the education department to test their competency
based on their experiences of working in a current pharmacy practice.
Sultan Dajani
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society |
The
Pharmaceutical Journal