GPhC Consultation on Training Internationally-Qualified Pharmacists
Published: 14th September 2026
What is being proposed
The GPhC is reviewing the route to registration in Great Britain for pharmacists who qualified outside the EEA, the EFTA countries and Switzerland. That review covers the standards education and training providers must meet, and the learning outcomes internationally-qualified pharmacists must demonstrate before they can register.
The present route
At least two years
The proposed route
One year, or less
Under the Professional Qualifications Act 2022, regulators must not put unnecessary barriers in the way of internationally-qualified professionals wanting to work in the UK. The present route is at least twice as long as most equivalent routes in other countries and those for other regulated healthcare professionals in Great Britain, and it does not allow providers to take account of relevant prior education, training and experience.
The proposals in detail
The programme will be based on new standards in two parts:
- Part 1: Learning outcomes. The knowledge, skills, understanding and professional behaviours an internationally-qualified pharmacist must demonstrate by the end of their programme.
- Part 2: Standards for programme providers. The key features of the programme through which those learning outcomes are delivered.
Pharmacists will apply direct to a university, and all aspects of the programme, including learning in practice, will be designed, managed and run by that university under established university procedures and student support arrangements.
The present route takes at least two years and is expensive in both time and money, as well as inflexible for pharmacists with substantial prior experience. The proposal reduces training to a single year of integrated academic learning and learning in practice, bringing Great Britain in line with other countries. Integration is central to the shortening: trainees apply their knowledge immediately, and duplication between separate academic and practical programmes is removed.
Education and training similar to that in Great Britain would be taken into account during the application process, within clear guidelines. Relevant experience gained in Great Britain, such as working in a pharmacy support staff role, would be recognised. Providers could shorten the period of education and training as long as all the outcomes in the new standards are still met.
The present route does not include independent prescribing training. The revised proposals build it in, bringing internationally-qualified pharmacists into line with pharmacists trained in Great Britain. The minimum number of learning in practice hours dedicated to independent prescribing would match that for UK-trained pharmacists who joined the register before 2026.
Internationally-qualified pharmacists are adult learners who may be based in established family or social groups, or have parenting or caring commitments and the financial pressures those bring. Only half of OSPAP students live near the university they study at, and many spend a lot of time travelling to and from campus. Providers are therefore encouraged to design programmes that are as flexible as possible.
Applicants would continue to pay for the validity assessment and the Common Registration Assessment, and would pay a programme fee set by the provider that includes the cost of training in practice. Individuals would not receive a salary while completing the programme. Shortening the overall period from two years to one, or less, would allow successful graduates to register and enter the job market a year earlier.
Once the standards are agreed by the GPhC's Council, providers will need time to develop programmes and have them accredited. The earliest new programmes are expected to run is the 2028-2029 academic year.
In the meantime, OSPAP providers may accept applications for existing programmes in 2026 and 2027, and those students will be eligible to apply for the foundation training year. NHS England will decide how long it continues to offer foundation training for those groups, up to and including people wanting to join the 2028 foundation training year. From 2028, learning in practice is built into the programme, so a separate foundation training application will not be needed. Students who trained in Great Britain are unaffected and continue to apply through established SEB routes.
Our response
The answers below are the response submitted by Community Pharmacy Scotland on behalf of community pharmacy contractors in Scotland.
The length of training proposed
Should the length of training for internationally-qualified pharmacists wanting to register in Great Britain be reduced from two years to one year?
YesOur answer
Providing the previous Pharmacist registration is from a country with a practicing and registration standard to at least to that of Great Britain, then this would seem appropriate.
Should an alternative route to registration be considered, other than the one-year postgraduate diploma proposed?
NoRecognising prior learning and experience
Should the GPhC allow providers to recognise prior learning and experience to shorten the period of education and training, where they can verify that it is recent, relevant and similar to that in Great Britain?
YesOur answer
Providing all criteria are met then this would seem appropriate but only where this can be clearly demonstrated.
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed criteria for recognising prior learning and experience?
Neither agree nor disagreeOur answer
We would flag that using an arbitrary time period requirement of 2 years in UK NHS practice for those whose registration is not equivalent to the UK standards could be viewed as one-size-fits-all and not required by all individuals in this position. This automatically makes the new route to registration longer than the current OSPAP route, which is at odds with the drivers for these changes. We would suggest considering moving this minimum to one year, with clear objectives and outcomes to gauge readiness established.
One concern that our members have raised is around fluency in the English language, even amongst those who have passed the necessary qualifications. This does not always translate to a team member who is able to confidently and safely communicate with patients and as such the entry bar should be reviewed and potentially raised.
The inclusion of independent prescribing
Should independent prescribing be built into the new training programme for internationally-qualified pharmacists?
YesOur answer
It is vital that the newly trained international Pharmacists have the same level of qualification to that of other new registrants. For this not to be the case this would:
- slow the progression of additional services in Community Pharmacy such as NHS Scotland Pharmacy First Plus
- create a backlog to accessing Independent Prescribing training courses as these International Pharmacists would then have to apply for such courses with existing potential trainees via the traditional route
This all said, we recognise that this will make the year in practice very full, and there is no input from statutory education bodies in terms of governance, oversight or support of this element which may be a cause for concern for some smaller employers.
The learning outcomes set
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed new learning outcomes are the right ones for internationally-qualified pharmacists wanting to register in Great Britain?
AgreeAre there any learning outcomes missing?
NoOur answer
The basis for the learning outcomes for any Pharmacist wishing to join the register in Great Britain should be the same, but we will take this opportunity to reiterate our earlier point about English language fluency requirements.
The standards and criteria
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the proposed new standards and criteria for programme providers are the right ones for quality assuring the education and training of internationally-qualified pharmacists?
AgreeAre there any standards or criteria missing?
NoOur answer
The Universities are experienced in delivering educational programmes and are the experts in this field. It seems appropriate they have control over this. From our perspective, the standards and criteria appear fairly robust and appropriate.
Impact of the proposals
The consultation asked whether the proposals would have a positive or negative impact on groups sharing the protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010, and on the groups closest to community pharmacy.
Please give your comments explaining your answers to the two questions above.
Our answer
Enabling students to have the option of residing at home during study and not having to live as a full-time student on campus will be beneficial for those with families, disabilities, and those who are pregnant or on maternity leave.
Pharmacy owners and teams may benefit from a workforce perspective as trainees may stay with the businesses affording them experience.
Students themselves will likely benefit from these changes. However, unless the relevant experience is reduced to one year FTE, time to register for certain trainees may actually increase.
About this response
Responding on behalf of an organisation. Community Pharmacy Scotland consented to being listed in the report of the consultation, and no part of this response was submitted in confidence. CPS is not involved in the design or delivery of education and training of internationally-qualified pharmacists.
This information was correct at the time of publication. Policy and guidance can change, so please check our latest news for the current position. For anything else, please contact enquiries@cps.scot
Please find below the NHS Circulars PCA(P)(2026)14 and PCA(P)(2026)15, advising that Serious Shortage Protocols (SSPs) are in place to help mitigate supply issues affecting lansoprazole 15mg and 30mg orodispersible tablets.