NHS Trafford, 3rd Floor, Oakland House, Talbot Road, Old Trafford, Manchester, UK.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013 Mar-Apr;9(2):142-54. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.07.008.
Revalidation will be introduced for pharmacy professionals in Great Britain. However, what pharmacists and technicians understand about it as a process remains unexplored.
This study aimed to explore the views of pharmacists and technicians about the revalidation of fitness to practice. Views were gathered on the sources of evidence that could be used, assessment methods, who should undertake the assessment, and how often it should occur.
A multiple methods study was conducted with community and hospital pharmacists and technicians. It included 6 focus groups, 14 one-to-one interviews, and a postal survey sent in March 2009 to a 10% randomly selected sample of 4640 practising pharmacists and 738 technicians working in England, Scotland, and Wales.
Twenty-nine pharmacists and 16 technicians participated in the focus groups and interviews; 1206 (26.4%) pharmacists and 240 (32.8%) technicians returned a completed questionnaire. A large majority of both pharmacists (86%) and technicians (81%) were in favor of continuing professional development (CPD) records being used as evidence to inform revalidation, but only a small proportion of both groups agreed that patient feedback should be used. Evidence from appraisals and peers/colleagues was also well supported. Technicians were significantly more likely than pharmacists to indicate that their assessment for revalidation should be undertaken by their main employer. Although most technicians (49%) believed that revalidation should take place every 2-3 years, most pharmacists (58%) believed that it should occur only every 5 years.
Pharmacists and technicians do not share the same views on all aspects of revalidation, suggesting that 1 single model may not be desirable or practicable. Both groups identified CPD, appraisal, and feedback from peers as possible components of revalidation, but concerns about impartiality and independence of assessors were raised.
英国将对药剂师进行再认证。然而，药剂师和技术员对这一过程的理解仍有待探索。
本研究旨在探讨药剂师和技术员对实践能力再认证的看法。收集了关于可使用的证据来源、评估方法、谁应进行评估以及应多久进行一次评估的意见。
采用社区和医院药剂师和技术员的多方法研究。它包括 6 个焦点小组、14 个一对一访谈以及 2009 年 3 月向英格兰、苏格兰和威尔士的 10%随机抽取的 4640 名执业药剂师和 738 名技术员的样本发送的邮寄调查。
29 名药剂师和 16 名技术员参加了焦点小组和访谈；1206 名（26.4%）药剂师和 240 名（32.8%）技术员完成了调查问卷。大多数药剂师（86%）和技术员（81%）都赞成使用继续教育记录作为再认证的证据，但只有少数两组都同意应使用患者反馈。评估和同行/同事的证据也得到了很好的支持。技术员比药剂师更有可能表示他们的再认证评估应由其主要雇主进行。尽管大多数技术员（49%）认为再认证应每 2-3 年进行一次，但大多数药剂师（58%）认为每 5 年进行一次即可。
药剂师和技术员在再认证的所有方面并非持相同观点，这表明可能不希望或不可行使用单一模型。两组人员都确定继续教育、评估和同行反馈可能是再认证的组成部分，但对评估员的公正性和独立性表示担忧。
