Home > PJ (current issue) > The Society / News Centre | Search

The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 277 No 7413 p200
12 August 2006


Society summary


Paper-based alternative to interview for some overseas registrants

The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has approved an alternative to interview by the Society's Adjudicating Committee for some overseas pharmacists seeking to register in Britain.

At the August Council meeting, the Council approved a detailed paper-based initial assessment application procedure for European Economic Area and Swiss national applicants who do not qualify for automatic recognition of the qualification under EU directives. The new procedure, recommended by the Adjudicating Committee and the Education Committee, would be an alternative to, rather than a replacement for, the present interview.

The Council also committed the Society to providing an applicant with a reasoned decision within three months of receipt of a complete application. And it agreed that the Society should consider all applications in accordance with the general EU principle of proportionality.

Presenting the recommendations, the Society’s head of accreditation, Damien Day, said that the first recommendation affected only a small number of overseas applicants. There was a concern whether the Society would actually have the right to interview such applicants once a new EU directive comes into force in October 2007. The directive required the Society to arrange some form of adaptation or test that filled the gaps in their knowledge and skills. There would also be a requirement to evaluate them within three months, which was a tight turnaround when one had to arrange interviews.

Mr Day said that the draft written application procedure was extremely thorough. It looked at every item in the MPharm syllabus and every item in the preregistration year. The Society would expect a narrative explaining precisely how each item was met. Any that were not met would be made a requirement of the adaptation.

The new procedure was probably more rigorous than an interview, said Mr Day, simply because it asked for more information than one could reasonably find out in the average interview.

Finally, applicants would pay a fee that would ensure that the exercise was cost-neutral to the Society.

Back to Top


©The Pharmaceutical Journal