Serious organisational failings at every one of the five exam venues included late starts, lack of a reasonable rest break, invigilators talking and laughing during exams, open-book materials not being inspected properly, and head invigilators announcing incorrect timings.
Pre-registration students are being offered the chance to have their paper re-marked at the cost of £110, even though the General Pharmaceutical Council has already re-marked failed papers to rule out technical issues. This re-marking will take up to 60 days, meaning candidates will loose their chance to apply to sit the September exam. The appeals procedure also takes 60 days, which forces students to decide between waiting for the results of their appeal, or paying to sit the September exam.
The PDA has written to the GPhC, on behalf of both organisations, highlighting the problems and making proposals to help rectify the potential damage to students’ exam results and future career prospects. The proposals are:
- Students who narrowly failed at their first attempt should be allowed to register for the examination in September as their first attempt, at no extra charge and without prejudicing their appeal
- Those who narrowly failed at their second attempt should be allowed to register for the September examination as their second attempt, at no extra charge and without prejudicing their appeal
- Those who narrowly failed at their third attempt should be allowed to register in September as their third attempt, at no extra charge and without prejudicing their appeal
- Those others that failed on their third attempt are allowed to re-sit in September without prejudicing their appeal.
Pre-registration exam results can be appealed and students may do so on procedural grounds. But because the maladministration was so widespread, the PDA suggests that the GPhC considers a more pragmatic response acknowledging the failings, without lowering the standards of entry into the profession.
In his letter to the GPhC John Murphy, PDA Director, commented: “We understand that the GPhC has been trying to streamline and reduce costs of the examination, but we also believe that a considerable amount of damage has been done to the reputation of the body that regulates the profession. We are therefore hopeful that it will recognise this and take appropriate action to restore confidence in the future generation of pharmacists.”