A trenchant and passionate dispute over the use of parametric versus non-parametric methods for the analysis of Likert scale ordinal data has raged for the past eight decades. The answer is not a simple “yes” or “no” but is related to hypotheses, objectives, risks, and paradigms. In this paper, we took a pragmatic approach. We applied both types of methods to the analysis of actual Likert data on responses from different professional subgroups of European pharmacists regarding competencies for practice. Results obtained show that with “large” (>15) numbers of responses and similar (but clearly not normal) distributions from different subgroups, parametric and non-parametric analyses give in almost all cases the same significant or non-significant results for inter-subgroup comparisons. Parametric methods were more discriminant in the cases of non-similar conclusions. Considering that the largest differences in opinions occurred in the upper part of the 4-point Likert scale (ranks 3 “very important” and 4 “essential”), a “score analysis” based on this part of the data was undertaken. This transformation of the ordinal Likert data into binary scores produced a graphical representation that was visually easier to understand as differences were accentuated. In conclusion, in this case of Likert ordinal data with high response rates, restraining the analysis to non-parametric methods leads to a loss of information. The addition of parametric methods, graphical analysis, analysis of subsets, and transformation of data leads to more in-depth analyses.

This paper presents an analysis of the end of degree expectations, expressed as learning outcomes, for pharmacy graduates from Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United States. The authors compare the end of degree expectations, through mapping these requirements to the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) Global Competency Framework (GbCF). The anticipated end of degree expectations are similar but also reveal some individual characteristics. Irrespective of degree title, achievement of learning outcomes specified in any one of the four jurisdictions should enable students to become pharmacists who are patient-orientated medicines experts. The mapping provides impetus for cross-border institutional networking to generate a dependable set of assessment tools across national borders developing a common metric for outcome assessment irrespective of different program delivery.

The 1985 European Economic Community (EEC) directive on the sectoral profession of pharmacy assumed that the comparability of pharmacy education across Europe could provide a basis for the mutual recognition of diplomas. A study by the European Association of Faculties of Pharmacy (EAFP) in 1994 showed, however, that there was large variability in course content. The 2011 PHARMINE study investigated whether such variability had decreased. Information from across the EU countries on the number of contact hours in specific subject areas was compared for the years of 1994 and 2011. Data was obtained from the original 1994 Bourlioux/EAFP study and the 2011 PHARMINE survey. As the latter was based on the 1994 survey, the questions and categories were similar. Results show that there has not been a fall in the variability of course content. Furthermore, EU pharmacy courses have become more “clinical” with an increase in contact hours in the subject area of medicinal sciences.

This paper presents the results of the second European Delphi round on the ranking of competences for pharmacy practice and compares these data to those of the first round already published. A comparison of the numbers of respondents, distribution by age group, country of residence, etc., shows that whilst the student population of respondents changed from Round 1 to 2, the populations of the professional groups (community, hospital and industrial pharmacists, pharmacists in other occupations and academics) were more stable. Results are given for the consensus of ranking and the scores of ranking of 50 competences for pharmacy practice. This two-stage, large-scale Delphi process harmonized and validated the Quality Assurance in European Pharmacy Education and Training (PHAR-QA) framework and ensured the adoption by the pharmacy profession of a framework proposed by the academic pharmacy community. The process of evaluation and validation of ranking of competences by the pharmacy profession is now complete, and the PHAR-QA consortium will now put forward a definitive PHAR-QA framework of competences for pharmacy practice.

PHAR-QA, funded by the European Commission, is producing a framework of competences for pharmacy practice. The framework is in line with the EU directive on sectoral professions and takes into account the diversity of the pharmacy profession and the on-going changes in healthcare systems (with an increasingly important role for pharmacists), and in the pharmaceutical industry. PHAR-QA is asking academia, students and practicing pharmacists to rank competences required for practice. The results show that competences in the areas of “drug interactions”, “need for drug treatment” and “provision of information and service” were ranked highest whereas those in the areas of “ability to design and conduct research” and “development and production of medicines” were ranked lower. For the latter two categories, industrial pharmacists ranked them higher than did the other five groups.

The objective of the PHAR-QA (Quality assurance in European pharmacy education and training) project was to investigate how competence-based learning could be applied to a healthcare, sectoral profession such as pharmacy. This is the first study on evaluation of competences from the pharmacists’ perspective using an improved Delphi method with a large number of respondents from all over Europe. This paper looks at the way in which hospital pharmacists rank the fundamental competences for pharmacy practice. European hospital pharmacists (n = 152) ranked 68 competences for pharmacy practice of two types (personal and patient care), arranged into 13 clusters. Results were compared to those obtained from community pharmacists (n = 258). Generally, hospital and community pharmacists rank competences in a similar way. Nevertheless, differences can be detected. The higher focus of hospital pharmacists on knowledge of the different areas of science as well as on laboratory tests reflects the idea of a hospital pharmacy specialisation. The difference is also visible in the field of drug production. This is a necessary competence in hospitals with requests for drugs for rare diseases, as well as paediatric and oncologic drugs. Hospital pharmacists give entrepreneurship a lower score, but cost-effectiveness a higher one than community pharmacists. This reflects the reality of pharmacy practice where community pharmacists have to act as entrepreneurs, and hospital pharmacists are managers staying within drug budgets. The results are discussed in the light of a “hospital pharmacy” specialisation.