Clinical content that is versioned, traceable and accountable
This page shows the sources, review controls and current sign-off position, including where approval is still outstanding. It is designed to help employers, supervisors and learners make an informed decision.
Who reviews it, and how content is assured
The clinical owner coordinates review, while approval must be attributable to a named human reviewer and the exact content version they assessed.
Clinical review
Approval outstanding. The restricted reviewer declaration is incomplete. A named clinician must record their role and registration, then review each exact content version before approval or verifiable certificate issuance.
How content is assured
- Each module is written to defined learning outcomes and a competency mapping.
- Content is prepared against dated source references and enters a named clinical review workflow before approval.
- Material is version-controlled by content hash, so a clinically material change automatically invalidates an earlier approval.
- Errors or guidance changes can be reported and are corrected and re-versioned.
- The review standard uses risk-based triggers: identified MHRA alerts and major NICE, SPS, UKHSA or national programme changes require out-of-cycle triage rather than waiting for an annual review.
- Any change to a module’s content automatically reopens it for a fresh clinical sign-off before it counts as reviewed again, so the sign-off always reflects the content as it stands now.
Named clinical approval has not yet been recorded for this live content version. The material remains educational, certificates are paused, and users must verify against current guidance and local governance before acting.
Sources and references
Content is written against dated, named UK primary care sources, cited in the modules.
The sources we work from
- NICE guidelines (named NG references in the modules)
- British National Formulary (BNF)
- Specialist Pharmacy Service (SPS)
- MHRA Drug Safety Updates & alerts
- STOPP/START criteria v3 (O'Mahony et al., 2023, European Geriatric Medicine) - used under CC BY 4.0
- RPS competency frameworks (Core Advanced; Prescribing)
How the certificate is earned, and what it is
A certificate can be recorded once the learner completes the mapped online modules and reaches the 80% pass standard on the level knowledge assessment. Optional simulated labs provide formative practice but do not control certificate eligibility. Retakes remain available after a revision interval and the assessment is not invigilated, so the certificate does not establish workplace competence or fitness to practise.
Accreditation status Independent - not externally accredited or regulator-endorsed (yet). Certificates record completion of the mapped online modules and an 80% knowledge-assessment pass standard. Optional simulated-practice history remains separate formative evidence. Retakes remain available after a revision interval and the assessment is not invigilated. Certificates do not establish workplace competence, prescribing authority, fitness to practise or a regulatory qualification.
Module sign-off coverage
Per-level clinical sign-off status across the curriculum. Certificates for a level are issued only when that level’s modules are signed off and in date.
- Foundation 0 of 0 modules signed off
- Practitioner 0 of 0 modules signed off
- Advanced 0 of 0 modules signed off
What the programme assessment measures
A transparent blueprint, including the current limitations. No claim of external validation is made before the evidence exists.
| Purpose and construct | To assess recall, application, role boundaries and simulated decision-making from the taught programme. It does not assess direct patient examination, hands-on technique, workplace behaviour or independent fitness to practise. |
|---|---|
| Paper delivery | Each sitting is generated on the server from a larger held-out item bank. Question selection and option order vary, attempts are single-use, and a revision interval applies before a repeat sitting. |
| Pass standard | The programme uses a policy pass threshold of 80%. This is not represented as an externally validated psychometric cut score. |
| Safety rule | Every paper contains a defined minimum of safety-critical items. All included safety-critical items must be correct, so a dangerous error cannot be compensated for by routine marks. |
| Evidence retained | The server records the paper version, score, pass result and attempt history. The assessment is uninvigilated and retakes are permitted. |
| Current validation status | Formal reliability, item-performance and standard-setting evidence has not yet been established across a representative learner cohort. These measures will be reported after a governed cohort evaluation rather than inferred in advance. |
Clinical, Education and Research Advisory Group
To provide structured challenge from clinical practice, pharmacy education, learners, patients and the public, accessibility and health-inequalities expertise, and research and digital-safety expertise.
Current status
Advisory group forming; no external endorsement or completed independent evaluation is implied
No member names are being published. Names and affiliations appear here only after explicit individual consent.
Required controls
- Adopted terms of reference and a defined quorum
- Individual conflict-of-interest declarations with review dates
- Dated agendas, attendance, minutes, decisions and action owners
- Version-specific clinical and educational review kept separate from general product advice
- Explicit consent before any member name or affiliation is published
- An evaluation protocol and ethics/sponsor decision before work is described as research
Perspectives being recruited
- Clinical pharmacist / independent prescriber
- University pharmacy educator
- Foundation training / DPP
- Primary care pharmacist
- Community pharmacist
- Pharmacy technician
- Current learner / early-career pharmacist
- Patient and public representative
- Accessibility / health inequalities adviser
- Digital clinical safety / research methods adviser
Independence and research boundary
Members advise in their recorded capacity. A member’s employment or study at an organisation does not mean that organisation, a regulator or the NHS endorses Medicine in Practice unless a separate written authorisation says so.
Advisory feedback and usability testing improve the product but are not automatically research evidence. Research claims require a protocol, defined outcomes, lawful data handling, participant information and consent, an ethics or sponsor decision where required, and a pre-agreed analysis and publication approach.
Mentoring and clinical supervision
Mentoring and clinical supervision are delivered as part of the same quality framework as the training content. Sessions run to the published Mentor Session Guide.
Mentor recruitment & standards
Mentors are recruited to be registered pharmacy professionals (GPhC/PSNI) in good standing, experienced in the relevant area of practice, and carrying their own professional indemnity. Identity, registration and reference checks are part of the standard mentors are recruited to; where a check has not yet been completed for an individual mentor it is not represented as done.
Scope
Supervision is developmental and educational - it supports the learner’s reflection, planning and portfolio. It is not a substitute for the learner’s own employer clinical supervision, line management or regulatory responsibilities, and mentors do not take on responsibility for the learner’s clinical decisions.
Confidentiality & no patient identifiers
Sessions are confidential to the learner and mentor. Agendas and reports must contain no patient-identifiable information - the Mentor Session Guide requires the mentor to interrupt and restate the rule the moment identifying detail slips in. Fitness-to-practise concerns are handled honestly and signposted (GPhC/PSNI standards, the learner’s indemnity provider, occupational health) and the fact of doing so is recorded.
Records, provenance & retention
Each session is recorded as a supervision record - agreed actions, mentor feedback and the learner’s own reflection - with mentor sign-off, and is filed automatically to the learner’s CPD portfolio so the evidence trail sits in one place and can be exported. Supervision records are retained in line with our learning-records retention period (up to 6 years) and then deleted or anonymised.
Sessions run to the Mentor Session Guide; booking and records are on the supervision page, and each report files to your CPD portfolio automatically.
Assessment integrity, feedback and appeals
Assessment integrity
Assessments are completed under an honesty declaration: by starting, the learner confirms the answers are their own, unaided. Questions and answer order are shuffled on every attempt, the pass mark is 80%, and a certificate records completion of the mapped modules and the knowledge-assessment standard reached. Simulated labs are optional formative practice and do not control certificate eligibility. Retakes remain available after a revision interval and the assessment is not invigilated, so it does not establish workplace competence, prescribing authority or fitness to practise. Registered certificates let an employer or appraiser verify issuance and the recorded course history.
Feedback, complaints and appeals
Learners can give feedback or report a content error at any time via the “Report an issue” button on every page, or by email. We acknowledge within 3 working days.
Complaints: email us with “Complaint” in the subject line. We acknowledge within 3 working days and aim to respond fully within 14 days.
Appeals: assessment retakes are unlimited and free, and every question shows worked feedback, so no result is final. If you believe a question or its marking is wrong, report it - confirmed errors are corrected and re-versioned, and are never held against your result.
Accreditation readiness
What a CPD accreditor looks for, and where this programme stands.
- Learning outcomes stated on every module
- Notional learning-time guidance in modules, with learners recording the actual CPD time they spent
- Defined online course standard: mapped modules complete, 80% assessment threshold and every sampled safety-critical item correct
- Assessment integrity statement and independently verifiable certificate IDs
- Learner feedback, complaints and appeals route
- Dated content version, named evidence base, risk-triggered review policy and exact-hash approval workflow
- Accountable clinical governance sign-off (in progress)
- External CPD accreditation (planned, see roadmap below)
Towards a fully accredited credential
External CPD accreditation and independent second-clinician review are planned. No approval is implied until a named reviewer has approved the exact content hash and the decision is visible in the coverage register. The manager dashboard and verifiable certificate IDs provide an educational evidence layer. Any workplace observation, practical-skills assessment or authorisation remains separate and is owned by the learner's employer. The supervised-practice log lets learners compile evidence for discussion with their own supervisor without Medicine in Practice making the sign-off decision.
Clinical content is version-controlled and dated, with review status recorded per unit in the live coverage register. Some material may be awaiting review or re-review. It is educational and uses fictional patients; always verify against current guidance, live clinical systems, local protocols and supervision.