GPhC begins work to introduce extra fitness to practise checks

As far as I know, the GMC requires revalidation every 5 years for those on its licence-to-practice register - hardly an on-going process.

Agree with revalidation as it keeps all "pharmacists" on their toes and prevents money-maker pill dispenser types from emerging. I know of pharmacists who have passed their CPD reviews with flyIng colours yet in reality wouldn't be able to get 50% in a pre-reg exam.

Pharmacy is diverse. So shall we have different sectors?
Hospital pharmacy based clinical questions which label sticking pharmacists cannot answer? Retail based questions that part time hours, easy workload hospital pharmacists cannot answer? What about industry? How about specialised areas?

How do you revalidate? Do have a exam every 5 years? How will this work for overseas pharmacists and EU law?

I think a pre-reg style exam would be fair as all pharmacists need to have a minimum base of knowledge which is required at the start of every pharmacists career. In depth clinical questions would be open book like they are in pre-reg. thus all pharmacists would be in a position to be competent enough to retrieve that information. I believe the objective of revalidation is to test the clinical and legal competency of a pharmacist ranging from responding to symptoms OTC or suPplying POMs and CDs against scripts safely and ethically

I think anything that improves and more importantly DEMONSTRATES to the public our true value as experts in medicines and general healthcare can only be good....Our image with the public has hitherto been very poor. This is because the remuneration model has been based purely on SUPPLY i.e. nothing mattered except the number of items dispensed!.
Although there are still challenges in changing that model ( there isn't an easy answer), we are at least gradually gaining more respect due to the much wellcomed developments in our clinical roles.

Like many other professions, pharmacists can find themselves working for many years in very different areas of their profession (hospital/community/industry etc) and refine their skills accordingly. After a period of time many would struggle (and could lack the knowledge) to move between different areas without a lot of retraining. I do not think there is anything wrong with this as long as the professional stays within their area of competence.
It is difficult to see how generic revalidation process could work given this situation. Would you have to have different processes and requirements for different areas of the profession?

Sadly I find this posting demeaning and unprofessional.

Revalidation is about demonstrating that pharmacists are competent to work in their field of practice. The process shouldn't be overly onerous; my guess is that it will be around building a portfolio of evidence (CPD records, audits, appraisals, records of activity) around what you are doing. There will be plenty of support available. To see what the medical profession is doing http://www.rcgp.org.uk/revalidation/revalidation_-_faq.aspx

As a EU pharmacist currently working in Lithuania, but planing to move to UK this May I am concerned about the lack of fitness to practice checks for newcommers from other EU countries. Including language proficiency tests. I hope the check GPhC is planing to do will address these issues.

I very much support the concept of revalidation for many of the reasons other contributors have stated not least of all the issue of public safety and confidence. However the practicalities need to be addressed carefully to ensure that they do not place an onerous workload on pharmacists and that they recognise the different roles pharmacists undertake in often highly varied settings. A word of caution however Shipman must no longer be used as a stick to beat healthcare professionals with. He was quite simply a criminal and the issue of revalidation is irrelevant to 'preventing another Shipman'.. It's a bit like saying because someone uses a car to kill someone then every driver should be forced to resit a driving test every year to deter others from taking such action!

There is nothing wrong with revalidation providing it is done correctly and recognises the different classes of the profession and does not lump it all into one revalidation test.

To quote ""Following a whole history of medical scandals such as Harold Shipman and [the case at] the Bristol Royal Infirmary" I think the referal to these cases to be totally inappropriate they were doctors not pharmacists please in future quote cases of pharmacists that have caused a national scandal.

Revalidation is simply proving that your CPD is actually of value, is it not? Showing that you are competent, rather than filling in some forms because you had a spare hour to read something is a more robust way of improving standards. However, for everyone who says we have a poor public perception (personally, I disagree) then that is our own fault - people will only have the perception we allow them to have if we do nothing to change it. My concern is - where will the time come from. GPs currently have protected time, we do not. GPs get paid for continuing education (as far as I am aware) - we do not. I agree in that I do not believe revalidation will be too onerous but it will still require some effort. Also, if one should fail ravalidation ,what are the consequences?
Please not the comment below that said GPs have done their best to have revalidation scrapped

My penny's worth. We MUST ensure that practicing pharmacist in which ever field, set the requirements for their respective fields, and NOT someone who has not been 'at the coal face' so to speak. You want to tell me how to do my job better, it will be worth so much more if I know you face the same daily challenges as I do.

My second penny's worth. CPD ensures that we keep abreast with clinical developments - or at least that is what it should do. Why do we not consider Revalidation to consentrate on other skills such as consultation skills, etc?

lol, or even spelling skills!