It’s the most wonderful time of the year – no, not that one. It’s that time of the year when the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) drip feeds statistics relating to the common registration assessment, formerly known as the pre-registration assessment. These statistics are often released without much context or explanation. Consequently, conclusions are drawn – flawed ones that lack critical thinking.

The first statistics to be released are the pass rates according to sector, with those groups being hospital, community and GP pharmacy. People are often outraged at the difference in pass rates between each cohort and conclude without any hesitation that the sector with the lowest pass rate – often community pharmacy – is responsible.

Read more: How many GPhC exam candidates nullified their June 2022 attempt?

Then the pass rates according to ethnicity are released and people are again outraged and blame institutional racism.

Then the pass rates are released according to the schools of pharmacy and, you guessed it, this time variable results are the fault of the schools of pharmacy.

Pinning the cause of trainees being unsuccessful on one single factor is, quite frankly, statistical nonsense. For example, this June, 1,557 trainees from community pharmacy sat the assessment, compared to 658 from hospital. That’s a sample size of less than half of those who sat from a community background.

We also know that hospital places are the most competitive and are only available via the portal Oriel, which requires students to sit an assessment. Those who score highest in the assessment get their preferred choice, which tends to be (although not always) hospital, with the number of these placements available capped.

The rest of the students, many of whom are still extremely strong academically, often end up in community. Those who didn’t do so well in Oriel also end up in community. Those who weren’t offered any places in Oriel because they didn’t pass the numeracy test end up in community. Those who didn’t apply via Oriel because they don’t like assessment processes due to anxiety, confidence or convenience, also end up in – you guessed it – community. Basically, community pharmacy accommodates everyone.

Read more: GPhC and PSNI announce 80% pass rate for chaotic June registration exam

Just over 18 months later, the hospital pass rates turn out to be higher than community pass rates. Or to put it another way, the group who did better in the Oriel assessment did better in the GPhC assessment – not that surprising, is it?

I accept the nature of the assessments are different. However, we know some students are more suited to assessment-style testing than others. What if we went back in time and put all the community trainees into hospital and vice versa, would the pass rates remain the same? You won’t convince me they would be.

There is a well-known mantra in academia: “Correlation does not imply causation”. In the summer, ice cream sales increase and cases of sunburn also increase. So eating ice cream causes sunburn? Of course not.

Imagine separating people into two groups based on how fast they can run over 100 metres. You then give each group different pairs of trainers and get them to race over 100 metres. Then when the fastest group wins, it’s claimed it was because of their trainers, not their existing ability to run fast. That’s what is happening here.

Consider a trainee who was born in this country into an affluent household of professionals, with English being their first language, receiving private tuition and getting straight As at A-level. They are more likely to get into a “top” university and secure a hospital placement. They will also almost certainly pass the GPhC assessment.

On the other hand, someone born overseas into a deprived household, further down the socioeconomic ladder, educated in a language other than English (therefore not having English as first or even second language) arrives in this country as a teenager and enters pharmacy via an alternative route. They need to work to support their family and have caring responsibilities at home. There is a lower chance of this individual getting into a “top” university or a hospital placement.

To attribute their success or failure in the GPhC assessment on sector alone is badly misguided. I recognise this example is extreme but it illustrates the point. Differential attainment is multifactorial; age, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors, primary language, education, drive, motivation and much more – there are so many factors, it will make your head spin.

Read more: Which registration exam protest demands has the GPhC granted?

Let me be clear, I’m not saying training across pharmacy sectors is the same. It isn’t. However, training within sectors is also not the same. The quality of training between hospitals varies and the quality of training between community pharmacies varies – even in pharmacies belonging to the same organisation. There are exceptional training experiences in both sectors and also room for improvement in both. I know of amazing training experiences in community pharmacy, and I’ve come across horror stories, too – that’s a valid conversation to be had another day.

The truth is, trainees who are studious, disciplined, organised and perform well in tests, will perform well in the GPhC assessment regardless of which sector they complete their training in. I believe that releasing statistics without context or explanation can be harmful. It risks stigmatising trainees from certain ethnicities, it risks stigmatising trainees from certain schools of pharmacy, and it risks stigmatising whole sectors of the profession. This impacts trainees’ confidence in themselves, demoralises them, creates internal insecurities and unfairly reduces confidence in the community pharmacy sector – the sector that welcomes all trainees of all abilities.

These are unintended consequences, really bad ones. Let’s be smarter about this.

Khalid Khan is head of training and professional standards at Imaan Healthcare