RCPharm warns GPhC against reducing length of training for internationally qualified pharmacists
In Analysis
Follow this topic
Bookmark
Record learning outcomes
The Royal College of Pharmacy (RCPharm) has today warned the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) against pushing ahead with its proposal to reduce the length of training for internationally qualified pharmacists who want to register in the UK from two years to one year.
The RCPharm said it had “significant concerns” about the proposal, one several proposals the GPhC put out to consultation in April this year. The RCPharm said halving the length of training and “incorporating independent prescribing” into the programme presented potential risks for patient safety as well as “the maintaining of standards across the profession”.
The consultation, which closes tomorrow, is seeking views from pharmacy professionals, pharmacy owners, patient representative bodies and other stakeholders on replacing the two‑year route with one year of “integrated academic learning and learning in practice” for internationally qualified pharmacists.
“This represents a substantial increase in expectations within a significantly reduced timeframe,” the RCPharm said. “In addition, the proposals do not adequately evidence how the addition of independent prescribing into the programme, alongside a reduction in timeframe, will not put considerable additional pressures on internationally qualified pharmacists to meet all the necessary standards.”
Referencing the Professional Qualifications Act 2022’s requirement that regulators “must not put unnecessary barriers in the way of internationally qualified professionals wanting to work in the UK”, the GPhC said “the present route is at least twice as long as most equivalent routes in other countries”.
However, the RCPharm said that was no “justification for accelerating the process” and insisted “such an approach raises potential safety concerns”.
“The consultation document does not outline the evidence which demonstrates the need for change in this pathway, whether that be a failure of the current route, impact on patient access or indeed workforce shortages attributed to this route,” it said.
“Patient safety, alongside maintaining professional standards and the trust of the public in the profession, should always be the primary driver for any changes.
“Such an approach raises potential safety concerns, particularly in light of the extensive education and training undertaken by pharmacy students and trainees in Great Britain across the full five-year pathway (MPharm and Foundation Training Year), which includes substantial academic learning and practical placement experience.”
The existing two-year pathway is already highly intensive
The RCPharm warned giving internationally qualified pharmacists an “intensified training pathway” when they face “multiple challenges” when coming to the UK to practice such as “professional isolation, visa and immigration pressures, language barriers and the high cost of both living and completing the programme”, raised questions about "learner wellbeing”.
“It is unclear from the proposals what specific considerations the GPhC has made to mitigate these risks and support candidate welfare,” the RCPharm said. “Testimonies from current and former (Overseas Pharmacists’ Assessment Programme) students indicates that the existing two-year pathway is already highly intensive.
“Introducing further demands, including independent prescribing, within a shorter timeframe risks overwhelming learners and undermining competence development.”
The RCPharm said “a key concern” was the reduction in practical training time as well as “system-level concerns about delivery capacity”.
“The proposed 20-week placement is substantially shorter than the current foundation training year,” it said. “There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this reduced duration will allow internationally qualified pharmacists to meet required learning outcomes or be adequately prepared to practise safely in Great Britain.
“The consultation does not convincingly justify the compression of one year of postgraduate study and one year of foundation training into this much shorter period.”