Layer 1

GPhC: Revalidation may be causing more pharmacists to leave register

During the launch of revalidation the GPhC received almost double the usual number of calls
During the launch of revalidation the GPhC received almost double the usual number of calls

An increase in pharmacists and technicians choosing to leave the register voluntarily may be a result of the introduction of revalidation, the GPhC has said.

A total of 1,500 requests from pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to be removed from the register were processed between October and December 2018.* This is an increase on the 1,066 requests in the same period the previous year, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) said in documents published ahead of a council meeting in London today (February 7).

“Following the introduction of revalidation for this year’s peak renewal cohort, we have received an increase in applications for voluntary removal from registrants to avoid the requirement to provide CPD for the period ending October 2018,” the GPhC said.

“It is both expected and understood that revalidation may have been a factor for some to make the decision to leave the register, particularly if a registrant had been maintaining registration but no longer practising,” the GPhC added.

The first cohort submitting CPD entries for the GPhC’s revalidation process had to do so by the registration renewal deadline of October 31.

Out of the 42,162 registrants expected to begin the revalidation process by this date, the GPhC has informed 3% (1,745) of its intent to remove them from the register unless they submit “representation” or an appeal, the regulator said.

However, 95% (39,910) have completed all the requirements, it added.

During the launch of revalidation, from April to October 2018, the GPhC contact centre received 28,007 emails and 64,000 calls, “close to double the usual traffic” compared with the same period in 2017, it said.

Call levels have since returned to normal, the GPhC added.

*The GPhC has since clarified to C+D that pharmacists and pharmacy technicians due to submit CPD articles between October and December may have asked to be removed from the register at any point during the previous renewal year.

C+D’s in-depth Update Plus modules now come with revalidation-ready logsheets, to take the hassle out of submitting your CPD

GPHC revalidation with chemist and druggist for pharmacy professionals

How have you found the revalidation process?

Meera Sharma, Primary care pharmacist

I think much easier for the GPhC to blame revalidation, rather than admit that revalidation was probably the final straw for most pharmacists who chose to leave. GPhC - strongly recommend you read the threads/posts on here - all your reasons are listed on here with loads of examples and how inept you have been in dealing with any of these. To add insult to injury - you've still got your head buried in the sand by stating that revalidation is causing pharmacists to leave the register/profession!



Benie Locum, Locum pharmacist

Yes, but revalidation is the issue. Haha

Christopher Jay, Community pharmacist

Revalidation is more than CPD, why would any pharmacist who has been on the Register for more than 40 years want to submit themselves to homework that enables them to work for a few days at a rate of pay that is less than 10 years ago. If the registered workforce declines, rates of remuneration will increase, and inefficient pharmacies will close. Good news for pharmacy!

David Moore, Locum pharmacist

It was certainly the deciding factor in my case. 46 years as a pharmacist, but the hassle of revalidation wasn't worth staying on for four more years.

Chris Sampson, Community pharmacist

Removed from the register wasn't it?

David Moore, Locum pharmacist

Yes. Struck off! ( You cannot retire from the register, only ask for your name to be removed. i.e. struck off.)

Chris Locum, Locum pharmacist

A former 'profession' that has sunk into the abyss with the manner in which one has to retire.

N O, Pharmaceutical Adviser

"" 64,000 calls,""

Out of this I am sure 63999 calls would have been because "all our operators are currently busy, please call later or visit the website" !!! :-))

Graham Turner, Non Pharmacist Branch Manager

Pharmacists who are approaching the end of their career may indeed find revalidation too much of a hassle and just leave, however CPD has been around for ages now so I find this hard to believe.

What's much more likely is that the awful working conditions, increasing pressure and falling wages are making people choose another career or even early retirement. I certainly don't blame them!

Chris Locum, Locum pharmacist

Yes. It was the dire working conditions and the escalating safety risk. I felt pride in joining - but relief at exiting.

R A, Community pharmacist

"What's much more likely is that the awful working conditions, increasing pressure and falling wages are making people choose another career or even early retirement. I certainly don't blame them!"

Summed it up very well the entire community pharmacy has become an endangered species who in their right mind would subject themselves to daily torture. 

Graham Turner, Non Pharmacist Branch Manager

"Daily torture" is a good way to describe it. Dozens of drugs not available, a constant queue of irate customers at the till, being called from a clueless area manager and hassled because you haven't completed an MUR yet, and having to do consultations for EHC, health checks, travel vaccines, flu jabs, chlamydia, I don't know why anyone signs up for this kind of work. Everything is compounded by being forced to use antiquated computer systems, and only being allowed to pay staff minimum wage. And heaven forbid that you should make a mistake - you will be hung out to dry if it becomes serious, despite your disgraceful working conditions which you could not object to because you have to service a mortgage.

Add to this not getting proper breaks, having to work outrageously long shifts, being called on your day off because someone has forgotten their password, being forced into a whatsapp group which pings during the night and your days off and holidays, it beggars belief. There is no relief from it unless you get out of pharmacy.

Lucky Ex-Boots Slave, Primary care pharmacist

Can't agree more! I'm glad I'm outta community sector. Been there, done that and will never ever look back!

Danny TheRed, Community pharmacist

Well said Graham, guessing you work for lloydspharmacy.......

Benie Locum, Locum pharmacist

But it's revalidation that is driving people away from pharmacy. Lol.

Graham Turner, Non Pharmacist Branch Manager

Much easier for them to blame it on revalidation than to actually admit the real reason so many pharmacists are leaving. I think the GPhC should pick some pharmacists at random and have them keep a detailed log for one day to show a snapshot of how much work they are having to do and how their stress levels change throughout the day. However, even that is open to corruption as they could cherrypick quiet places and then refuse to admit stress and workload are an issue.

If the GPhC did what they are actually mandated to, and protected the public, they would be implementing some kind of minimum staffing levels depending on the workload. So why are they desperately trying to dodge the main issue in the industry? Too much work, or is it because they are told to look the other way?

That should be their number one priority. It would improve safety for patients and reduce stress for their registrants (who they only seem to treat with contempt, despite the fact that they feed off of their money).

However, as this would effectively result in their "mates" having to emply more staff and make fewer profits, it will never happen. the biggest players in pharmacy are making a mockery of the system by understaffing branches to maximise (off-shore) profits, but the GPhC refuses to either accept this or tackle it.

All the GPhC does is produce the occasional statement of pure, pointless bluster, and tackle indivdual pharmacists for making errors. If Rudkin stopped focusing on coming down on pharmacists for errors or misjudgements, and got to the root of the issue, outcomes would be improved for everyone. Why is it that we are forced to use "root-cause analysis" when the GPhC do the complete opposite? GPhC only tackle the symptoms, they don't treat the disease, which is why nothing is going to change.

I seem to remember that clinical governance seemed to include a "no-blame" culture, so what happened to that please? Apparently an error was caused by the environment and the systems would need to be evaluated, so what happened to this please? Have we back-tracked on clinical governance so that we can blame the poor pharmacist instead of the greedy international corporation?

Clinical governance was all about looking at the system which allowed the error, not sacking the poor employee who made it. Has this been abandoned?

"Patient-focused", "intelligence-led", and "outcome-focused" are just some of the garbage that they have come out with recently. Absolutely laughable.

First thing to do is to stop wasting registrants money on offices in Canary Wharf, it reminds me of Imelda Marcos taking all the money from Phillipinos to give herself a life of luxury at the expense of the starving citizens who had no say, and could face capital punishment for a small misdemeanor.

Maybe then they will have the finances to get to the root of the issues of pharmacy in the UK, but I don't think that will ever happen with Rudkin at the helm.

Pharmacy in the UK would appear to be completly crooked and corrupt with the big chains getting away with everything whilst the poor pharmacist with a family to feed takes the brunt. Look at that whistleblower who provided reams of evidence about Boots understaffing, leading to errors and some deaths. The GPhC dismissed it, yet one accusation from the public can result in an indivual pharmacist being struck off for something spurious. The whole thing stinks to high heavens, why would they ignore such a huge portfolio of evidence from an insider, yet take the word of a member of the public as gospel?

Because it's much easier than incriminating your cronies, and makes it look like you are doing something useful, when in fact you are doing the exact opposite, you are allowing the public to eb subjected to these money grabbing corporations who are more concerned about your wallet than your health.

Anytime you want the GPhC to do something or answer a question, they just say "sorry we are only here to protect the public". So if they are not even doing that, what are they actually doing? Coming down on pharmacists who got drunk and ended up in a fight on a Saturday night? How is that protecting the public seeing as that person would never be drunk at work? Utter, utter rubbish from them.

They just go after "easy-pickings". And as we all know, tackling the big multiples who are often owned by international conglomerates is definitely not "easy-pickings"despite the fact that doing so might bring the profession out of the sewer, improve patient safety, and reduce stress for registrants.

GPhC registrants are paying a lot for regulation of the industry, but they are not getting what they are paying for. They are giving money to the very people out to get them, just so they can sit in swanky Canary Wharf offices, whilst they do nothing about the immoral behaviours of the big multiples.

If you don't believe any of what is said in this post, please give it  at thumbs down. And goodluck in your pharmacy career.

Lucky Ex-Boots Slave, Primary care pharmacist

If I could give you 10 upvotes I would definitely do so! Very well said and I agree every single word here. Gphc is nothing but an incompetent and corrupted regulator. They are probably secretly accepting bribery from Boots to let their crappy branches pass the inspection! 

sanjai sankar, Locum pharmacist

Agree with you on many fronts...The registrants should be allowed to have a vote on whether the GPhC is fit for purpose or whether reform is needed. The result of that vote should be made public. 

Graham Turner, Non Pharmacist Branch Manager

That'll never happen because the GPhC know what the result would be!

N O, Pharmaceutical Adviser

"" 3% (1,745) of its intent to remove them"" and  ""95% (39,910) have completed all the requirements""

What happened to the rest 2% ??? 

Now for some GPhC calculation test:

""Out of the 42,162 registrants""

""3% (1,745)""

""95% (39,910)""

This gives us balance of  507.

But 2% of 42,162 is 843.24.

Now if 3% is 1745 then 2% will be (1745*2/3) = 1163.33.

Any GPhC certified Maths specia;list here can you explain HOW this is possible???

Job of the week

Pharmacist Manager
Midlands, Cheshire & Dorset
Salary dependent upon experience