Royal college warns over proposals to reduce internationally qualified pharmacists’ training time

The Royal College of Pharmacy (RCPharm) has said it disagrees with proposals to reduce by half the training time for internationally qualified pharmacists who want to practise in Great Britain.

The proposal was set out in the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) consultation on internationally qualified pharmacists’ education and training, which closes on 21 July 2026.

The consultation applies only to internationally qualified pharmacists who have qualified outside the EEA/EFTA countries and Switzerland.

Currently, internationally qualified pharmacists need to complete two years of education and training in Great Britain before they can apply to register with the GPhC. They must first undertake the Overseas Pharmacists’ Assessment Programme, then complete one year of foundation training, before sitting the registration assessment.

Under the proposals, the two-year programme would be cut to one year, combining academic learning and learning in practice, and the year would include independent prescribing training. Pharmacists would still be required to pass the Common Registration Assessment before joining the register.

In a press release published on 20 July 2026, the College said: “[RCPharm] believes any changes should ensure internationally qualified pharmacists are given sufficient time, support and practical experience to successfully transition into pharmacy practice in Great Britain, which would be much more challenging within a significantly reduced timeframe.”

In its response to the GPhC’s consultation, published alongside the press release, RCPharm said that the one-year route “represents a substantial increase in expectations within a significantly reduced timeframe and the proposals in their current format, do not adequately evidence how such a move would not risk impacting on patient safety or the maintaining of standards across the profession”.

It particularly highlighted the proposed reduction in training time to 20 weeks, which the College noted is “substantially shorter than the current foundation training year”.

“There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this reduced duration will allow internationally qualified pharmacists to meet required learning outcomes or be adequately prepared to practise safely in Great Britain,” the consultation response added.

It suggests that a one-year registration-focused integrated programme — with independent prescribing training done separately — could be more suitable.

In the consultation document, published in April 2026, the GPhC said: “The present route is expensive, in both time and money. It is also inflexible, particularly for pharmacists with substantial prior experience. In designing a new route, we have taken into account that applicants are already qualified pharmacists with relevant science and pharmaceutical skills and knowledge.”

The GPhC proposals also suggest that the education and training period could be shortened for some pharmacists if they have prior learning and experience that is “recent, relevant and similar” to Great Britain.

The College agreed with this, although it said there needs to be clarity on exactly what is considered recent, relevant and similar, while there must be a “robust, transparent, and consistent framework” to assess this and ensure patient safety.

Tase Oputu, president of the RCPharm, commented: “Internationally qualified pharmacists make a hugely valuable contribution to patient care across Great Britain, and we welcome efforts to review and modernise the current registration pathway.

“Any future model should strike a balance between recognising existing experience and ensuring pharmacists are fully supported as they adapt to a new healthcare system, regulatory framework and professional environment. We support exploring greater flexibility and recognition of prior learning where appropriate.

“As these proposals are developed, it will be important to ensure there are robust arrangements in place to support learning, supervision and assessment, while maintaining the high standards that patients, the public and the profession rightly expect.”