Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.

Join

Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

Registration assessment

Pharmacists to 'proof check' GPhC registration assessment questions after errors found in exam

The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has introduced “a blind proof check” of its exam questions after three errors were found in the regulator’s June 2019 registration assessment.

In minutes from the council’s meeting on 12 September 2019, which were published on 8 October 2019, Damian Day, head of education at the GPhC, said the errors were “both unusual and concerning”.

“As a result, the quality assurance process for the development of questions had been reviewed and would be changed before the September sitting,” he said, adding that this included “the introduction of a blind proof check by pharmacists who had not previously seen the questions”.

Council papers from the September meeting, published ahead of the meeting on 9 September 2019, explained that there “were errors in three questions, for which the Board [of Assessors] apologises”.

It added that the errors were found during the exam “and announcements were made to candidates”.

The Board of Assessors determined that the errors in two questions were “minor and did not materially affect the questions and they were not removed” from the total number of questions.

However, one question in paper two of the exam was removed by the board due to the error and not counted towards candidates’ final mark.

The British Pharmaceutical Students’ Association’s report on the June 2019 registration assessment said it had received “little to no positive feedback” on paper two of the assessment, with 100 respondents claiming it did not reflect the GPhC’s framework for the exam.

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2019.20207179

Readers' comments (1)

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.