The following allows you to customize your consent preferences for any tracking technology used
to help us achieve the features and activities described below. To learn more about how these trackers help us
and how they work, refer to the cookie policy. You may review and change your preferences at any time.
Recent Comments
The exam is there for a reason. It is there to ensure that there is a minimum standard of competence for those who are practising. It has nothing to do with being there "just for the sake of it". More importantly, it allows the public to have confidence that a person who has sat the exam and has passed is competent to practise. The GPhC are there to 1. Protect the public, 2. Maintain public confidence in the profession and 3. To maintain and declare proper standards within the profession. The exam fulfils as 3 of these criteria.
I agree that the exam is not there just for the sake of it and it has some purposes. However, I do believe that it is currently causing more hinderance in regards to so many aspects a) our mental health and b) our professional progression. It is true that we are allowed/we have started our diplomas and equivalent however it is very difficult to balance between our jobs, pre-reg revision and our professional progression.
Moreover, the clinical aspects of the BNF are very generic - and in practice we do not even use that (e.g. local guidelines, renal drug database etc.). The exam does not reflect on that.
All other professions cancelled their exams (e.g. medics and nurses) - except for pharmacists and that was very disappointing. I believe that they also care for patient safety however they trusted that their practitioners (pre-reg equivalent) would manage.