What do employers think their role is in ensuring language proficiency of internationally trained pharmacists

Le résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: Until 2016, internationally trained pharmacists (ITPs) from the European Economic Area (EEA) did not need to prove sufficient language proficiency to the pharmacy regulator upon registration. Pharmacists themselves have a professional responsibility to ensure they can communicate and work effectively, but some responsibility also rests with employers, yet very little research has explored this. The aim of this study was to explore employer views of the communicative proficiency of ITPs whose first language was not English, their role as employers and potential implications for patient safety. METHODS: Semi-structured, telephone interviews were conducted with seven community and two hospital employers with experience of employing EEA pharmacists, between May and July 2010. Verbatim interview transcripts were coded and analysed in NVivo using the framework approach. KEY FINDINGS: All participants mentioned the importance of having processes in place to assure EEA pharmacists' linguistic competency in the workplace. During recruitment, different strategies were used to assure language competency. Some employers only conducted interviews while others required candidates to pass English language assessments. Participants were most familiar with the International English Language Testing System, which was described as too general and not unique to pharmacy. Other pharmacy-specific tests such as the University of Bath English Language Test and Linguarama English Assessment Test for Pharmacists were alternatives. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is no one standard procedure in place to check the communicative competency of EEA pharmacists. The findings from this study suggest that there is need to establish a uniform assessment system so all the EEA pharmacists could be tested justly and consistently.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.