GPhC consults on tougher language tests for EU pharmacists
The regulator wants to perform language checks on pharmacists who qualified in Europe, which it is currently unable to do
The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) is consulting on stricter language controls for European pharmacists and technicians.
Changes to the law agreed in March will give the regulator new powers to perform language checks on pharmacists who qualified in the EU, the GPhC said in a consultation document published on Friday (September 24).
The GPhC can currently only check the language skills of non-EU pharmacists, by asking for evidence that they passed an internationally recognised exam. The GPhC wants to expand its checks to include all non-UK pharmacists and technicians, and will also be willing to accept evidence that the applicant has either completed their pharmacy degree in English or has recently practised in an English-speaking country for at least two years, it said.
Applicants whose language skills do not meet the required standards will have to undergo additional training and assessments before they can practice in the UK, the GPhC said.
The GPhC will only be able to formally request evidence of a European pharmacist's language skills after it has recognised that they are qualified, it stressed.
The new controls – which the GPhC hopes to approve in April 2016 – will also allow the regulator to investigate pharmacists’ and technicians’ fitness to practise if their language skills "pose a serious risk to patient safety", it added.
GPhC chief executive Duncan Rudkin said the “important changes” will provide “further assurance to patients”. Employers will still be responsible for checking the language skills of pharmacists and technicians they plan to employ, he stressed.
Pharmacists have until December 17 to respond by completing the consultation form, the GPhC added. The regulator is running another consultation simultaneously on changes to its indemnity arrangements and how to avoid conflicts of interest caused by joint membership of its appeals and fitness-to-practise committees.
What do you make of the proposals?
We want to hear your views, but please express them in the spirit of a constructive, professional debate. For more information about what this means, please click here to see our community principles and information
