Specific Assessment Regulations for the Non-Medical Prescribing Module (GPhC) – SHGM22 

These regulations apply to students enrolled on the stand-alone module and students studying a programme where the module exists as part of an award.


The pass mark for all assessment components shall be 50% with the exception of the numeracy examination which requires a 100% pass mark.


Failure to sit an examination/redeem a failed assessment or submit work by the date specified by or on behalf of the University shall result in a mark of 0% being recorded for the module.


A candidate who is absent from the module shall be required to retake the module at the next available opportunity, within the maximum period of candidature. 


In exceptional circumstances, and in accordance with the University’s Policy on Extenuating Circumstances Affecting Assessment, candidates who fail to redeem their module components during the re-sit period specified by or on behalf of the University because of extenuating circumstances or who fail the module at the first opportunity during the re-sit period (i.e. as a deferral) may submit evidence of such circumstances to their Faculty/School for consideration. At the discretion of the University Progression and Awards Board, such candidates may be permitted one further opportunity to re-sit. The reassessment(s) shall normally take place at the next assessment(s) point for the module at the next opportunity but within the maximum period of candidature.


Candidates failing to achieve the pass mark in any assessment component shall be given one opportunity to redeem the failure and must re-sit all assessment elements as specified by the Faculty/School unless unsafe practice (defined below) has been identified.


The marks of all re-sit assessments shall be capped at 50% or the pass mark if this is higher, regardless of the actual mark, with the exception of the numeracy examination which requires a 100% pass mark and so the actual mark will apply.


Failure of an assessment component at the second attempt shall result in the candidate being withdrawn from the University.


Candidates may not re-sit any assessment component for which a pass mark has been attained previously.


Candidates who are withdrawn from the University shall be given the opportunity to appeal against this decision through the Accuracy of Published Marks procedures or Academic Appeals procedures. There will be no right of appeal if the student is withdrawn because they have demonstrated unsafe practice.

Specific GPhC Requirements Where Unsafe Practice has been Identified:

  1. Students who fail to identify a serious problem or provide an answer which would cause the patient harm, as determined by or on behalf of the University during any assessment component, will be deemed as unsafe to practise*, will be given a mark of 0% and will have failed the module.
  2. Students will forfeit the right to redeem a fail when unsafe practice has been identified. The student will be withdrawn from the module.   
  3. Students undertaking module SHGM22 as an optional module in a programme of study will have one opportunity to select and undertake an alternative optional module if they are withdrawn from SHGM22 due to unsafe practice. These students will have one attempt only at the assessments for the alternative module and will not have an opportunity to retrieve any failed assessments. 
  4. Students who have failed SHGM22 due to unsafe practice may re-apply to be admitted to the module. If their application is successful and they are re-enrolled on the module, students will be required to attend all teaching and practice sessions and will be required to undertake and pass all assessment components.

* This judgement is made by the assessor, the moderator and external examiner using their clinical academic judgement.

Examples of unsafe practice in non-medical prescribing include, but are not limited to:

  • Prescribing a drug that is not recommended for that condition when there are plenty of alternatives.
  • Prescribing a drug that is contra-indicated for that condition.
  • Prescribing a drug that is not required by the patient (e.g. antibiotic with no evidence within the clinical picture of infection).
  • Incorrect prescribing of a drug (e.g. writing the wrong dose, form, route amount on the prescription).
  • Not meeting the basic requirements of prescription writing which can result in incorrect dispensing and subsequent harm.
  • Poor performance during a clinical consultation (extended patient scenario - summative assessment) e.g. poor history taking, poor clinical examination which could result incorrect diagnosis and subsequent treatments.