BACKGROUND: Revalidation will be introduced for pharmacy professionals in Great Britain. However, what pharmacists and technicians understand about it as a process remains unexplored. OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. Crown
BACKGROUND: Revalidation will be introduced for pharmacy professionals in Great Britain. However, what pharmacists and technicians understand about it as a process remains unexplored. OBJECTIVES: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. Crown