Full programme of assessment

Illustration of online learning
  • Individuals undertaking training programmes will be required to compile an e-portfolio evidencing their learning against the curriculum outcomes in line with the programmatic assessment principles defined below
  • Learners will use a variety of supervised learning events to evidence their learning against the (relevant) outcomes, referring to the descriptors to help guide them on the level of performance required
  • The RPS has sought to ensure a flexible and authentic approach to assessment through guidance as to when and how to use each supervised learning event whilst allowing the learner and their supervisors the freedom to make an informed judgement as to which tool or combination of are most appropriate in any given learning situation.
  • For some higher-stakes outcomes, mandated assessment guidance has been stated; this means that evidence mapped to these outcomes must include examples of these assessment types to be achieved

The programme of assessment is based on a programmatic approach which uses assessment for learning. It involves building up a picture of the learner’s ability by undertaking multiple low stakes assessments, enabling individuals to receive immediate feedback in order to understand their own performance and identity areas for development. Information is then aggregated from a rich variety of assessments to inform the final decision.

Supervised Learning Events (SLEs)

A range of assessment instruments are included within the RPS post-registration foundation pharmacist e-portfolio that individuals undertaking the programme, as well as their supervisors and collaborators, can use to record learning and demonstrate progress towards the curriculum outcomes.

The tools below can be used to demonstrate learning; however, individuals may choose to upload other forms of evidence to their e-portfolio to demonstrate their learning. Supervised learning events do not necessarily need to take place in person and may be undertaken remotely using digital technologies, where possible and appropriate to the educational context. Any video or telephone consultations which have been recorded for the purpose of a SLE should be stored out with the e-portfolio and the learner /supervisor should follow their programme guidance for gaining consent and managing the recording (e.g. security, confidentiality, storage, disposal). 

The following assessment tools are available:

Direct observation supervised learning events

Description

Acute Care Assessment Tool (ACAT)

Evaluates the individual’s clinical assessment and management, decision making, team working, time management, record keeping prioritisation and handover over a continuous period of time across multiple patients.

Can be used in all sectors.

Case Presentation (CP)

Evaluates the individual’s ability to orally present a case to colleagues.

Direct Observation of Non-Clinical Skills (DONCS)

Evaluates the individual’s non-clinical skills.

Direct Observation of Practical Skills (DOPS)

Evaluates the individual’s ability to undertake a practical procedure.

Journal Club Presentation (JCP)

Evaluates the individual’s ability to present at a Journal Club.

Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX)

Evaluates a global clinical encounter with a patient and assesses the synthesis of essential for clinical care such as history taking, communication, examination and clinical reasoning.

Teaching Observation (TO)

Evaluates the individual’s ability to deliver an effective learning experience to others.

Indirect observation supervised learning events

Case Based Discussion (CbD)

Retrospectively evaluates the individual’s input into patient care. A structured discussion is undertaken remotely from the patient and is used to explore clinical reasoning, decision making and application of clinical knowledge in practice

Leadership Assessment Skills (LEADER)

Evaluates the individual’s leadership and teamworking capabilities

Quality Improvement Project Assessment Tool (QIPAT)

Evaluates the individual’s ability to undertake a quality improvement project

Other tools

Multi-source Feedback (MSF)

Evaluates the individual’s performance using feedback from colleagues

Patient Survey (PS)

Evaluates the individual’s communication and consultation skills from the patient’s perspective

Patient Survey Reflection (PSR)

Allows the individual to reflect on the feedback

Reflective Account (RA)

Flexible tool for individuals to document reflection and learning from a wide range of settings


Evidence types additional to supervised learning events will also be required to demonstrate achievement of the curriculum outcomes. The individual undertaking this programme is free to upload any evidence type they feel demonstrates achievement of the curriculum outcomes. Examples could include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Published journal articles or research
  • Conference abstract/poster
  • Copies of anonymised written feedback from patients and colleagues
  • Copies of anonymised documents evidencing active involvement in e.g. significant event analysis, risk management activities, service developments, formulary management
  • Videos or recordings of presentations and/or meetings
  • Development courses
  • Learning logs
  • Anonymised documented responses to clinical enquiries about medicines
  • Personal development plans

It is important that the supervised learning events and other evidence of learning within the e-portfolio are pitched at the appropriate level to meet the descriptors in the programme of learning, fully anonymised and comply with information governance principles.

Some post-registration foundation programmes may require additional assessments to meet the higher education institution’s academic requirements for independent prescribing. Where this is the case, these assessments will sit out with the RPS national assessment programme. 

Assessment blueprint and evidence requirements

The blueprint below shows the recommended assessment tools for each outcome. It is however at the individual’s discretion as to which assessment tools they choose to evidence each outcome. It is not expected for the individual to use all of the recommended potential tools – these are provided simply as guidance and the assessment tools used will depend on the nature of the learning and the educational context.

Illustration of the Pharmaceutical Industry

In line with the programmatic assessment approach, each outcome has been given a stakes rating of either High, Medium or Low based on their potential risk to patient safety. There is no prescriptive number of pieces of evidence, but we suggest a minimum of three pieces of evidence are linked to each outcome, with more evidence for higher stakes outcomes. It is important to include as wide a range of evidence as possible which reflects the depth and breadth in the descriptors.

The stakes rating does not relate to the importance of the outcome. All of the curriculum outcomes should be considered as equally important in terms of demonstrating post-registration foundation level practice and all outcomes must be achieved in the programme of assessment to be credentialed.

For some of the outcomes, we consider it necessary for the learner to be directly observed in practice and in most cases, it would be acceptable to use remote technology to facilitate this. However, we have identified a small number of outcomes where we feel the learner should be observed face to face in real time to ensure behaviours such as body language and non-verbal cues can be fully observed to support their development and training needs. Any mandatory evidence requirements are detailed in the assessment blueprint below.

ACCESS THE ASSESSMENT BLUEPRINT HERE

Reviews

The three different types of reviews the learner will experience during their training programme are:

Level 1: Informal review

Individuals should receive formative feedback at their regular monthly meetings with their educational supervisor, and during their period of learning in practice, with their designated prescribing practitioner.

Level 2: Intermediate progress review

This is a more formal review and should occur at least every six months. As a minimum, it will include the learner and their supervisor (educational supervisor and/or designated prescribing practitioner). Post-registration foundation programmes may wish to include additional roles in some/all of these review meetings e.g. a member of the academic team or an experienced external educational supervisor (particularly if upskilling new educational supervisors).

The purpose of these reviews is to:

REVIEW: systematically review the learner’s performance and progress in a holistic and supportive way. This will allow strengths and any specific training needs to be identified

SUPPORT: early identification of learners who may require additional support so that individually tailored support strategies can be implemented

ASSESS: check the quality of supervised learning events and other portfolio evidence meets the required standard. Can focus on the outcomes that still require evidence. Any issues with the quality of evidence can be addressed before the final assessment

PROGRESS: determine the learner has made satisfactory progress to move forward with the programme. Where this is not the case, appropriate remediation can be implemented

Level 3: Final assessment

Depending on the training model, the process will be slightly different.Decisions to submit should be supported by the individual’s supervisor(s) (if they have one).

Integrated training programme

Individuals can submit their e-portfolio for a final decision review by a competency committee when:

  • All of the curriculum outcomes and clinical assessment skills have been achieved
  • Any additional summative assessments required by the higher education institution to meet their academic regulations have been completed

Modular training programme

Individuals can submit their e-portfolio for a final decision review by a competency committee when:

  • The non-independent prescribing outcomes and any clinical assessment skills not assessed during the standalone independent prescribing course have beenachieved
  • The higher education institution has awarded their Practice Certificate in Independent Prescribing and it has been uploaded to their e-portfolio

Regardless of the training model, the learner’s higher education institution will be the awarding body for the Practice Certificate in Independent Prescribing. Where the higher education institution’s requirements for independent prescribing are fully met by the RPS programme of assessment, the final summative assessment can serve as a dual final summative assessment and this would be agreed by the higher education institution and RPS.

Using the collection of assessment data gathered from a variety of sources throughout the programme, post-registration foundation competency committees will review performance information to assess the learner has met the minimum level of performance to be credentialed.

To be credentialed, the individual must have been awarded the Practice Certificate in Independent Prescribing.


Who assesses my portfolio? 

Portfolios will be assessed by an RPS post-registration foundation competency committee, which will be chaired by a senior RPS representative and include at least panel members representing the following roles:

  • Educational supervisor (not directly involved in the supervision of the learner)
  • Practising pharmacist (practising at a level beyond the standard articulated in this curriculum)
  • Active prescriber (pharmacist or non-medical prescriber with at least two years prescribing experience)
  • Academic expertise 

Illustration of hands reaching for pharmacy

Outcomes 

The potential assessment outcomes of the PFCC are as follows:

Standard met – the individual has provided satisfactory evidence to demonstrate achievement of all the Post-registration Foundation curriculum requirements

The learner’s higher education institution, as the regulated awarding body, awards the Practice Certificate in Independent Prescribing. The RPS credentials the learner having completed the wider post-registration foundation programme which demonstrates they have developed the appropriate skillset to progress to RPS advanced practice credentialing pathways.

Standard not met – the individual has not provided satisfactory evidence to demonstrate achievement of all the Post-registration Foundation curriculum requirements under assessment. This outcome may result from one or both of the following:

  1. Inadequate progress – the evidence does not meet the required standard
  2. Incomplete evidence presented – the panel can make no statement about progress or otherwise where either no information or incomplete information has been supplied and/or is available to the panel

When can I submit my portfolio for assessment?

Dates to follow.

Assessment fee

Information about the fee for submitting your portfolio will be added shortly.