Click on a year below to explore our research publications.
Research on the Standards for the Initial Education and Training of Pharmacy Technicians
This research report examines how the 2017 standards for the initial education and training of pharmacy technicians (IETPT) have affected professional practice.
The research was commissioned by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) in 2023 and carried out by the Centre for Pharmacy Workforce Studies (CPWS) at the University of Manchester and the consultancy service, ICF.
Its primary purpose was to examine whether the 2017 standards for the initial education and training of pharmacy technicians have made a difference to the skills and performance of pharmacy technicians in comparison to the previous 2010 standards. It examined how the standards have affected the experiences of newly qualified pharmacy technicians, employers, and course providers.
The findings of this research will help inform the work we are doing to review and update the 2017 IETPT standards.
Protected characteristics of pharmacists involved in the managing concerns process for 2021/22
This report provides a breakdown of concerns raised about pharmacists by age, ethnicity and sex in 2021/22, looking specifically at concerns received and investigated, statutory outcomes of closed concerns and progression through the process.
In line with our ‘Delivering equality, improving diversity, and fostering inclusion’ strategy, we are committed to making regulatory decisions that are demonstrably fair, lawful and free from discrimination and bias, and using all of our regulatory levers and influence to help tackle discrimination, making sure that everyone can access inclusive and person-centred care.
Through our strategy work, we’re also committed to publishing more diversity data to support visibility and intelligence sharing across the pharmacy sector, to identify and monitor any disproportionate impacts on different groups, and to take steps to understand and deal with potentially discriminatory outcomes.
Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on pre-registration training and provisional registration
The GPhC supported Keele University in their research investigating the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on provisionally registered pharmacists, pre-registration trainees and pre-registration tutors. The pre-registration trainees were a diverse group consisting of those who had chosen to remain as pre-registration pharmacists for personal reasons and those who were ineligible to join the provisional register. The pre-registration tutors were particularly keen to share their thoughts on how the pandemic has impacted both the 2019/20 and 2020/21 cohorts.
Five themes emerged from Keele University’s findings:
Effect of the pandemic on pre-registration training – covering reduction in practical experience at certain points during the pandemic, especially in late March 2020 at the beginning of the first wave and first lockdown. This theme further highlighted access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and greater impact of the pandemic on training courses in the 2020/21 cohort.
Provisional registration – covering feelings of provisionally registered pharmacists in relation to eligibility and confidence levels. It also highlighted the feelings of pre-registration tutors.
The registration assessment and mental health – covering interviewees reported adverse mental health and wellbeing because of the delay to the registration assessment. Several factors, such as poor communication on behalf of GPhC, the consequences of failure, as well as insufficient study time due to problems with accommodating annual leave were found to have caused stress among interviewees.
The new Initial Education and Training Standards for pharmacists – “Amongst the pre-registration and provisional registrant interviewees, there appeared to be a lack of awareness of the new education and training standards. However, those who had some insight, were mostly positive towards the changes. This reported lack of communication has highlighted a need to revisit communication strategies to promote awareness and understanding of important developments for the profession.”
Communication – “The issue of communication by the GPhC was an incidental finding of this research project. None of the questions in any of the topic guides mentioned communication as an area to explore and yet it was raised in nearly every interview across the board. Failure in communication by the GPhC was reported in relation to both the delay to, and revised date of, the registration assessment and the new education and training standards.”
GPhC survey of registered pharmacy professionals 2019
During summer 2019, we commissioned Enventure Research to carry out the second iteration of our survey of registered pharmacy professionals to understand more about their roles and responsibilities, work settings and future work plans. All pharmacists and pharmacy technicians were invited to respond to the online survey and we received over 18,000 responses with an overall response rate of 23.1%.
Between November 2013 and August 2018, we inspected over 14,000 registered pharmacies in England, Scotland and Wales. In late 2018, we commissioned Solutions for Public Health (SPH) to analyse the inspection reports to identify any key characteristics of pharmacies and common themes in the reports that correlate with performance against our standards for registered pharmacies. The reports of this research are available below:
Barriers and enablers to the pharmacy technician profession
The Pharmacy Technician Clinical Leadership Fellow 2018/19 undertook research to increase our understanding of whether there are things that we or others could do, or not do, to support the pharmacy technician profession as it continues to advance to meet the future needs of pharmacy and the public.
In spring 2018, we invited a sample of pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and pharmacy owners on our register to take part in a survey about their views of our services and communications. We received 508 completed responses to the survey, and this report presents an analysis of what we heard.
Revalidation - reflection on learning and practice
We piloted a new continuing fitness to practise framework (CFtP) which aimed to increase registrants’ reflection on learning and practice and ensure that improvements are made that benefit patients and the public. The framework requires fewer reflective CPD entries, but the addition of a case study and a peer discussion. Solutions for Public Health (SPH) were commissioned in 2017 to evaluate the pilot framework using a mixed method approach.
Pharmacist registration assessment – performance of Black-African candidates
We published a report in 2016 that examines the performance of Black-African candidates in the Registration Assessment in 2013, 2014 and 2015. The GPhC was prompted to examine this issue after registration assessment results indicated that Black-Africans performed less well than other groups.
We commissioned the Office for Public Management (OPM) to conduct qualitative research to provide insights into the factors affecting their performance.
In July 2015, we launched a survey sent to all pharmacist prescribers on our register to gain a more holistic picture of prescribing practice. This report presents the analysis of the responses we received.
We conducted a pre-registration pharmacist tutor survey and pre-registration pharmacy technician training survey for the 2014-2015 training year alongside an analysis of pre-registration trainee pharmacist dissatisfaction for the 2013/14 training year.
We are keen to understand the experiences and expectations of those using pharmacy services. This report contains the findings of a public perceptions survey carried out by Ipsos Mori on our behalf in 2015.
Pharmacy technician education and training standards
This report, published in 2015, presents commissioned research undertaken jointly by the London Pharmacy Education and Training and UCL School of Pharmacy. The researchers explored the scope of the current initial education and training standards for pharmacy technicians and the extent to which the employers of pharmacy technicians and other stakeholders think the standards are fit for purpose.
To help inform a review of our professional standards – the primary document that sets out the behaviours, attitudes and values expected of pharmacy professionals and explains the standards that all pharmacy professionals must comply with – we commissioned Community Research in 2015 to explore what patient-centred professionalism or being professional means to patients and the public.
Our approach to inspections which was evaluated was in operation from November 2013 to April 2019. We have since updated our approach to improve the way we regulate and inspect registered pharmacies.
We commissioned IFF Research to conduct a review of continuing professional development (CPD) as part of its development of a “Continuing Fitness to Practice Framework”. The study included a review of 200 registrants’ CPD records (1,000 individual activity records) completed between 2010 and 2015, and analysis of qualitative feedback from those involved in the process in order to improve it in the future.
Quality of pharmacy technician education and training
In 2014, we commissioned the University of Manchester to conduct the first comprehensive study into the quality of pharmacy technician education and training since it became a fully regulated profession in 2010.
In autumn 2013 we commissioned NatCen Social Research to carry out a survey of registered pharmacy professionals. This was the first survey of its kind carried out by the GPhC and it provides important insights into areas including employment, responsibilities and appraisals.
All pharmacy technicians and a large probability sample of pharmacists as well as pharmacist prescribers were invited to take part in the paper-based survey. Over 29,000 registered pharmacy professionals responded to the survey and we achieved a response rate of 56.4%.
The first baseline analysis of the register of pharmacy technicians. The analysis was undertaken by the Centre for Pharmacy Workforce Studies, School of Pharmacy, University of Manchester on our behalf.
An analysis of the register of pharmacists was undertaken and comparisons between 2010 and 2011 are presented. The analysis was undertaken by the Centre for Pharmacy Workforce Studies, School of Pharmacy, University of Manchester on our behalf.
