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.


Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login


Registration assessment

Exam result gap must be closed

There is still much work to do to reduce disparities in registration assessment results, but the General Pharmaceutical Council’s efforts should hopefully be a move in the right direction.

Preregistration students in exam hall

Source: Andrew Fox / Alamy Stock Photo

The difference in the 2018 registration exam pass rates between the best and worst performing pharmacy school was 36.8%, but the General Pharmaceutical Council is working to lessen this gap

The difference in pass rates between the best and worst performing pharmacy schools in the 2018 summer registration assessment was 36.8 percentage points.

Pharmacy students who attended the University of Central Lancashire achieved a pass rate of 56.8%, while students at University College London managed a pass rate of 93.6%. The overall pass rate was 79.0%.

Neither of these were outliers with just a handful of students taking the exam — University College London had one of the biggest cohorts, with 140 students, while 95 students from the University of Central Lancashire sat the assessment.

Two other low-performing universities achieved pass rates of around 65.0%, while 5 of the 26 pharmacy schools in Great Britain had more than 90% of their students pass the assessment.

In 2017, the gap was almost as large, with pharmacy students from Kingston University achieving a pass rate of 60.8% and those from the University of Sunderland achieving a 93.1% pass rate.

While low pass rates are not necessarily a problem, the variation in results between low and high-performing pharmacy schools is.

In 2015, the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists used a Freedom of Information request to establish how A-Level results, and the proportion of students taken on through clearing, related to success in the registration assessment.

The results showed that candidates from pharmacy schools that accepted students with lower mean or median A-Level grades or took more students through clearing were more likely to fail the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) assessment on their first attempt. Unsurprising, perhaps, but the role of any university is to ensure its students reach an acceptable level in their chosen field of study. They must not allow the pressure to fill places — in order to receive the consequent fees — to override this duty.

This is something the GPhC acknowledges and, after the 2017 exam results were announced in July that year, it met with pharmacy schools to discuss poor performance by preregistration trainees.

Following its meetings, the GPhC announced that the schools with the lowest pass rates had developed action plans to help better support their students. It also said that all schools would continue to be monitored through its quality assurance process.

This is not the only work the GPhC has taken on in tackling variation in the registration assessment performance. In July 2018, the regulator announced an action plan to work on the disparities in results by students from different ethnic backgrounds. Following analysis of results over a number of years, the GPhC announced that pharmacy schools have now been asked to be more proactive in their policies on equality and diversity, and that it will talk to education providers to evaluate their policies in this area.

Both these areas are complex and sensitive, and it may be unfair to judge pharmacy schools on the registration assessment, bearing in mind that students have spent a year away from the institution before they sit the exam. In the past, the GPhC’s figures have also shown significant variation in registration assessment performance between students from different placements. 

It is reassuring to see the regulator’s efforts in this area and this work may take time to bear fruit, but next summer’s preregistration assessment results will be closely scrutinised to see whether things are moving in the right direction.

  • This editorial was amended on 19 October 2018 to correct the ‘University of Central Lancaster’ to ‘University of Central Lancashire’. The Pharmaceutical Journal apologises for any confusion caused.

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal DOI: 10.1211/PJ.2018.20205486

Readers' comments (2)

  • Bangladesh Education Board JSC Result

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I was disappointed by this editorial, ‘Exam gap must be closed’, Pharmaceutical Journal, September 2018.
    You highlighted two schools, one at the top, and one at the bottom of the GPhC pass league tables, with the implication that attending one school of pharmacy is likely to enhance your chances of becoming a pharmacist relative to another. The editorial does not make it particularly clear that these figures are based only on the first of three possible attempts to pass the preregistration examination, and the more meaningful figure would be the numbers who fail to pass after three attempts and therefore cannot go on the register. The GPhC do not publish these figures, and one suspects that this is because they are much less discriminating between schools of pharmacy and so less newsworthy.

    Did you pass all your exams on the first attempt during your academic studies; I suspect many of your readers would not have and were grateful for the resit opportunity! The reasons for not passing on the first attempt can be as varied, but one important issue flagged by some graduates is the difference in the nature of the GPhC assessment to that encountered at universities during their undergraduate studies; noting that universities are required to make strenuous efforts to ensure that assessments do not disadvantage minorities.
    So the situation is a far less clear cut than suggested in the opening of your editorial, and I do hope you will bear this in mind in future commentary.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

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

Supplementary images

  • Preregistration students in exam hall

Jobs you might like

Newsletter Sign-up

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