In the very early days, those actually working as apothecarys were taken on without examination to be the first pharmacists. Then followed a period when you had to serve a 4 year apprenticeship and study at evening classes for the 'minor'. You then had about 9 months at a college to obtain the 'major'.
Next was the Chemist and Druggist diploma followed by the Pharmaceutical Chemist exam after two years. You had the option of two years apprenticeship before college or, one year post grad as now. I served my apprenticeship from 52-54. I took this exam in January 1957 to become a Ph.C. and registered as a pharmacist while still at college.
However, local authorities who gave grants decided only to award them to those studying for a course in which 'honours' may be obtained... the B.Phrm.
I took the B.Phm in June 1958.
In all, it took me six years from A levels to graduation, and I still had 2 years National Service before earning a penny as a pharmacist. You youngsters have never had it so easy!
johnep
Why the pharmacist need further education for providing MUR ? If they already have the accreditaiton? Moreover, there are 2 different thing. One is assement only and another one is Course and assesment? Which one is preferable and why is that preferable? So far I can understand the pharmacist who has experience for few years they need to get only the accreditation to show the employer and the new pharmacist might need the course for experience. Is that the thing? Or there is something else as well?
I did Skills for MURs and it took me around four hours, I recommend registering (for free) and using bnf.org in a separate window for even faster searches while completing the case studies.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
