Skip to main content
Pharmacy Practice logoLink to Pharmacy Practice
. 2011 Dec 12;9(4):169–187. doi: 10.4321/s1886-36552011000400001

The 2011 PHARMINE report on pharmacy and pharmacy education in the European Union

Jeffrey Atkinson 1, Bart Rombaut 2
PMCID: PMC3818732  PMID: 24198854

Abstract

The PHARMINE consortium consists of 50 universities from European Union member states or other European countries that are members of the European Association of Faculties of Pharmacy (EAFP). EU partner associations representing community (PGEU), hospital (EAHP) and industrial pharmacy (EIPG), together with the European Pharmacy Students’ Association (EPSA) are also part of the consortium.

The consortium surveyed pharmacies and pharmacists in different settings: community, hospital, industry and other sectors. The consortium also looked at how European Union higher education institutions and courses are organised.

The PHARMINE survey of pharmacy and pharmacy education in Europe produced country profiles with extensive information for EU member states and several other European countries. These data are available at: http://www.pharmine.org/losse_paginas/Country_Profiles/.

This 2011 PHARMINE report presents the project and data, and some preliminary analysis on the basic question of how pharmacy education is adapted to pharmacy practice in the EU.

Keywords: Education, Pharmacy; Pharmaceutical Services; European Union; Europe

Introduction

In 1994 the EAFP, under the direction of P. Bourlioux, University Paris XI, France, brought out a document surveying the state of pharmacy education in the EU of that time (document available at: http://enzu.pharmine.org/media/filebook/files/Bourlioux_full_report.pdf). In 2006 the EAFP decided to repeat this study and enlarge it to European pharmacy practice. To this end the PHARMINE consortium was created amongst EAFP members.

The PHARMINE consortium, created in 2008, consists of 50 universities from EU member states or other European countries that are members of the European Association of Faculties of Pharmacy (EAFP). EU partner associations representing community (PGEU), hospital (EAHP) and industrial pharmacy (EIPG), together with the European Pharmacy Students’ Association (EPSA) are also part of the consortium.

The consortium surveyed pharmacies and pharmacists in different settings: community, hospital, industry and other sectors. The consortium also looked at how EU higher education institutions, courses and traineeship were organised. An empirical – based on statistical analysis of data - rather than an intuitive approach was used to avoid anecdotal conceptualisation. The fundamental question asked was: is pharmacy education adapted to needs?

This is the 2011 report for the EU. Further reports will be edited in the future as the data for EU member states are completed, data from other European countries are obtained, situations in individual countries change, etc.

Methods

The survey ran between the spring of 2009 and the summer of 2011. An electronic version was sent out to at least 2 faculties per country (excepting countries with only 1 faculty e.g. Estonia). We planned for a balanced design and obtained data from at least 1 faculty per country; in some cases we did not obtain data from 2 faculties.

In some cases, data were expressed per population (in millions, M). The population of the different member states used in the analysis was that as of 1st January 2009 given in the European Commission Eurostat demography report for 2011 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/population/documents/Tab/report.pdf.

Statistical analysis

Data (n=25) were obtained from the 27 EU member states excepting Cyprus and Luxembourg that do not have full pharmacy degree courses. When data were obtained from 2 faculties in the same country, the data from the larger faculty was used.

Results are expressed as medians with 10 and 90% percentiles. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test for deviations of distribution from normality was significant with positive skewness – a bunching of values below the mean with a long tail above: one-tailed percentage points for skewness =0.711 (n=25 and α=0.05). Skewness was due to the uneven distribution of population in the EU. Twenty % of the population of the EU live in 17 smaller countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden, and 80% in 8 larger countries: France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and United Kingdom. Kurtosis (an excess of values near the mean and far from it with a corresponding depletion of the flanks of the normal distribution curve) was rarely significant (percentage point for distribution =3.99, for n=50 and α=0.05).

In order to compare data for an individual country with an EU “average”, several possibilities were envisaged. Comparing the data for a given country with the EU mean was judged invalid as distributions were often not normal (see previous paragraph). Comparisons with medians were also invalid as medians were equal to zero in some cases. It was decided to use an EU linear regression estimation. This was calculated as follows: estimations of numbers of pharmacies, etc. as the dependent variable were calculated from the linear regression equation with population as the independent variable with the condition that when X=0, Y=0. The reported number for the country was then expressed as a ratio of the estimated number. Taking community pharmacies in France as an example: with X=population and Y=community pharmacies, forcing the linear regression through Y=0 when X=0, gives a slope of 298 ±18 (test of slope≠0: P<0.0001; n=25 countries). Thus the EU linear regression estimation of the number of pharmacies in France =64.7 million x 298 =19,280. The reported number of pharmacies is 23,133, thus giving a ratio compared to the estimate of 23,133/19,280 =1.20 (see table 6). France therefore has 1.2 times more pharmacies than to be expected from the EU linear regression estimation or EU “average”.

Statview® (http://statview.com/), GraphPad® (www.graphpad.com) and nQuery® (www.statistical-solutions-software.com) programs were used.

Complete data for each country can be obtained on the PHARMINE website at: http://www.pharmine.org/losse_paginas/Country_Profiles/ . These profiles were written by the various members of the PHARMINE consortium (see below). Data were checked by JA with that available on the internet, where possible.

Documentation of the Counselling Process and Data Analysis

Durinexxxxxxxxxxxxxws

Results

EU population and number of pharmacists

The population of the 25 EU member states under consideration is 501 million. A total of 419,353 pharmacists work in these 25 countries, with 81% in community pharmacy, 5% in hospital pharmacy, 7% in industrial pharmacy and 10% in other occupations (tables 1 and 2). Tasks carried out in each of the 4 sectors, as reported, are given in table 3. The median values for population, number of pharmacists and population per pharmacist are 10 million, 6,278 and 1,593 (tables 1, 2, 4 and 5).

Table 1.

EU pharmacists: reported data (NA: data not available).

  Population (millions) Community pharmacists % total Hospital pharmacists % total Industrial pharmacists % total Other occupations % total Total number of pharmacists
Austria 8.4 5,160 94.6 292 5.4 NA - NA - 5,452
Belgium 10.8 12,000 90.2 500 3.8 800 6 NA - 13,300
Bulgaria 7.6 6,000 84.3 114 1.6 1000 14.1 NA - 7,114
Czech Republic 10.5 6,000 95.6 220 3.5 15 0.2 43 0.7 6,278
Denmark 5.5 952 25.9 270 7.4 1900 51.7 550 15 3,672
Estonia 1.3 1,165 75.9 100 6.5 20 1.3 250 16.3 1,535
Finland 5.4 1,406 45.8 545 17.7 800 26.1 320 10.4 3,071
France 64.7 55,455 72.9 5,574 7.3 4752 6.2 10,309 13.5 76,090
Germany 81.8 57,353 81.1 1,890 2.7 5500 7.8 6,019 8.5 70,762
Greece 11.3 11,342 87 302 2.3 144 1.1 1,250 9.6 13,038
Hungary 10.0 4,900 62.4 350 4.5 1200 15.3 1,400 17.8 7,850
Ireland 4.5 3,400 84.1 474 11.7 85 2.1 83 2.1 4,042
Italy 60.4 40,346 85.1 2745 5.8 4300 9.1 NA - 47,391
Latvia 2.2 1,624 80.5 94 4.7 300 14.9 NA - 2,018
Lithuania 3.3 2,947 93.5 NA - 85 2.7 120 3.8 3,152
Malta 0.4 281 45 120 19.2 71 11.4 152 24.4 624
Netherlands 16.6 3,100 62 400 8 NA - 1,500 30 5,000
Poland 38.1 21,534 95.1 1,100 4.9 NA - NA - 22,634
Portugal 10.6 6,108 56.4 738 6.8 674 6.2 3,313 30.6 10,833
Rumania 21.5 13,500 93.8 692 4.8 100 0.7 100 0.7 14,392
Slovakia 5.4 2,900 89 159 4.9 200 6.1 NA - 3,259
Slovenia 2.0 906 56.5 78 4.9 470 29.3 150 9.4 1,604
Spain 47.2 48,000 77.9 1,612 2.6 11996 19.5 NA - 61,608
Sweden 9.3 1,400 43.8 200 6.3 1200 37.5 400 12.5 3,200
United Kingdom 62.0 21,712 69.1 6,213 19.8 1137 3.6 2,372 7.5 31,434
NA: data not available

Table 2.

EU pharmacists: statistical analysis.

  Community pharmacists % total Hospital pharmacists % total Industrial pharmacists % total Other occupations % total Total number of pharmacists
Number of values 25 25 24 24 22 22 17 17 25
Median 5,160 81 375 5.2 737 7 400 10 6,278
10% Percentile 934 45 97 2.5 35 0.82 75 0.7 1576
90% Percentile 50,982 95 4,159 18 5,276 35 6,877 30 65,270
Mean 13,180 74 1,033 7 1,670 12 1,667 13 16,774
Standard deviation 17,739 19 1,635 5.1 2801 13 2,720 9.2 22,603
Standard error 3,548 3.9 334 1 597 2.8 660 2.2 4521
KS normality test                  
KS distance 0.29 0.15 0.32 0.26 0.34 0.19 0.29 0.12 0.3
P value <0.0001 >0.10 <0.0001 0.0002 <0.0001 0.04 0.0005 >0.10 <0.0001
Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)? No Yes No No No No No Yes No
Skewness 1.7 -0.87 2.5 1.7 2.8 1.6 2.5 0.71 1.8
Kurtosis 1.6 -0.07 5.7 2.1 8.7 2.6 6.3 -0.09 2
Sum 329,491 1,848 24,782 167 36,749 273 28,331 213 419,353

Table 3.

Activities and occupations of pharmacists in the EU.

Community Hospital Industrial Other
• preparation of medicines
• dispensing of medicines
• substitution by generic drugs
• customer counselling on
• medicinal prescriptions
• use of self-medication medicines
• dietetic products for adults and babies
• programs on addictive drug substitution
• nicotine replacement drugs and strategies
• blood pressure, glycaemia. cholesterol monitoring/screening
• reporting of adverse drug reactions
• purchasing, stocking, distribution of drugs
• management of drug budget
• preparation of drugs for specific pathologies. e.g. anticancer drugs
• specialised medical devices and material
• sterile preparations
• radio-chemicals
• quality assurance
• Interaction and communication with others: doctors, nurses, hospital board
• prescription of drugs under certain circumstances
• participation in clinical trials
• teaching of hospital staff, pharmacy students
• personalised medicine service
• research and development of drugs
• synthesis and production
• preclinical and clinical drug evaluation
• marketing authorisation
• quality assurance
• marketing
• management of complaints, recalls
• food industry
• cosmetology
• biotechnology
• clinical biology / chemistry
• academia
• wholesale and distribution of medicines
• armed forces, fire service, police
• communication, marketing
• state and local governments
• insurance companies
• IT database and technology
• family planning clinics
• labile blood products, transfusion services
• humanitarian aid
Table based on replies from 25 member states. Not all activities and / or occupations may be present in a given country.

Table 4.

Community pharmacists. Pharmacies and assistants: reported data.

  Population (millions) Community pharmacists Population /pharmacist Community pharmacies Population /pharmacy Pharmacists /pharmacy Assistants Assistants /pharmacy
Austria 8.4 5,160 1,628 1,270 6,614 4.06 5,278 4.16
Belgium 10.8 12,000 900 5,729 1,885 2.09 6,500 1.13
Bulgaria 7.6 6,000 1,267 4,500 1,689 1.33 NA NA
Czech Republic 10.5 6,000 1,750 2,420 4,339 2.48 4,600 1.9
Denmark 5.5 952 5,777 318 17,296 2.99 3,200 10.06
Estonia 1.3 1,165 1,116 496 2,621 2.35 748 1.51
Finland 5.4 1,406 3,841 805 6,708 1.75 3,839 4.77
France 64.7 55,455 1,167 23,133 2,797 2.4 35,000 1.51
Germany 81.8 57,353 1,426 21,390 3,824 2.68 12,192 0.57
Greece 11.3 11,342 996 10,890 1,038 1.04 4,032 0.37
Hungary 10.0 4,900 2,041 2,380 4,202 2.06 5,400 2.27
Ireland 4.5 3,400 1,324 1,616 2,785 2.1 539 0.33
Italy 60.4 40,346 1,497 17,617 3,429 2.29 NA NA
Latvia 2.2 1,624 1,355 810 2,716 2.00 1,481 1.83
Lithuania 3.3 2,947 1,120 1,320 2,500 2.23 1,890 1.43
Malta 0.4 281 1,423 204 1,961 1.38 184 0.9
Netherlands 16.6 3,100 5,355 2,000 8,300 1.55 17,000 8.5
Poland 38.1 21,534 1,769 10,628 3,585 2.03 20,052 1.89
Portugal 10.6 6,108 1,735 2,667 3,975 2.29 4,596 1.72
Rumania 21.5 13,500 1,593 5,796 3,709 2.33 120,000 20.7
Slovakia 5.4 2,900 1,862 1,848 2,922 1.57 2,080 1.13
Slovenia 2.0 906 2,208 296 6,757 3.06 456 1.54
Spain 47.2 48,000 983 21,057 2,242 2.28 NA NA
Sweden 9.3 1,400 6,643 1,200 7,750 1.17 6,800 5.67
United Kingdom 62.0 21,712 2,856 13,693 4,528 1.59 14,838 1.08
NA: data not available

Table 5.

Community pharmacists. pharmacies and assistants: statistical analysis.

  Community pharmacists Population /pharmacist Community pharmacies Population /pharmacy Pharmacists /pharmacy Assistants Assistants /pharmacy
Number of values 25 25 25 25 25 22 22
Median 5,160 1,593 2,380 3,585 2.10 4,598 1.63
10% Percentile 933.6 991.1 309.2 1,807 1.266 480.9 0.43
90% Percentile 50,982 5,524 21,190 7,970 3.018 30516 9.592
Mean 13,180 2,145 6,163 4,407 2.124 12305 3.408
Standard deviation 17,739 1,569 7,466 3,315 0.6593 25,443 4.636
Standard error 3548 313.7 1493 663 0.1319 5424 0.9885
KS normality test              
KS distance 0.2949 0.2916 0.2802 0.2454 0.1377 0.3169 0.3242
P value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0004 >0.10 <0.0001 <0.0001
Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)? No No No No Yes No No
Skewness 1.676 1.946 1.305 2.664 0.8499 3.967 2.857
Kurtosis 1.577 2.856 0.3212 9.159 1.889 16.94 9.215
Sum 329,491 53,631 154,083 110,169 53.1 270,705 74.97

When the data (population versus pharmacists) are plotted separating into larger (n=8) and smaller (n=17) EU member states with a cut-off after The Netherlands (16.6 M), results are similar with slopes of 758 ± 202 and 728 ± 155 (t-test for difference between slopes: P>0.05) for larger and smaller countries; medians are 1545 (percentiles 879, 3,282) and 1628 (percentiles 977 and 6,097), respectively.

Thus in the above and almost all of the following cases there are no significant differences in results from larger and smaller EU countries (data not shown).

Community pharmacies, pharmacists and assistants

Reported numbers of community pharmacists expressed as a ratio of the EU linear regression estimation, gives a median value (0.92, percentiles 0.25 and 1.49) not significantly different from 1 (P>0.05) (tables 6, 7). Belgium (1.64) and Sweden (0.22) are outside the limits. Thus Belgium has more and Sweden less community pharmacists than the EU linear regression estimation.

The median number of pharmacies is 2380. Ratios compared to the EU linear regression estimation (tables 6, 7) showed 4 countries outside the percentile limits (0.32, 1.86): Greece (3.23), Bulgaria (1.99), Denmark (0.19) and Slovenia (0.18). Thus Greece has more than 3-fold, Bulgaria twice, and Denmark and Sweden one-fifth, the number of pharmacies. There are 3585 persons per pharmacy.

Table 6.

Community pharmacies. pharmacists and assistants: reported data as a ratio of the EU linear regression estimation (NA: data not available).

  Community pharmacies Community pharmacists Assistants
Austria 0.51 0.9 1.35
Belgium 1.78 1.64 1.3
Bulgaria 1.99 1.16 NA
Czech Republic 0.77 0.84 0.94
Denmark 0.19 0.25 1.25
Estonia 1.28 1.32 1.24
Finland 0.5 0.38 1.53
France 1.2 1.26 1.17
Germany 0.88 1.03 0.32
Greece 3.23 1.48 0.77
Hungary 0.8 0.72 1.16
Ireland 1.21 1.11 0.26
Italy 0.98 0.98 NA
Latvia 1.24 1.09 1.45
Lithuania 1.34 1.32 1.23
Malta 1.71 1.03 0.99
Netherlands 0.4 0.28 2.21
Poland 0.94 0.83 1.13
Portugal 0.84 0.85 0.93
Rumania 0.9 0.92 NA
Slovakia 1.15 0.79 0.83
Slovenia 0.18 0.25 0.18
Spain 1.5 1.5 NA
Sweden 0.43 0.22 1.58
United Kingdom 0.74 0.52 0.52
NA: data not available

Table 7.

Community pharmacies. pharmacists and assistants: reported data as a ratio of the EU linear regression estimation: statistical analysis.

  Community pharmacists Community pharmacies Assistants
Number of values 25 25 21
Median 0.94 0.92 1.16
10% Percentile 0.316 0.25 0.272
90% Percentile 1.864 1.488 1.57
Mean 1.068 0.9068 1.064
Standard deviation 0.6544 0.4121 0.4826
Standard error 0.1309 0.08242 0.1053
KS normality test      
KS distance 0.1386 0.1084 0.126
P value >0.10 >0.10 >0.10
Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)? Yes Yes Yes
P value summary ns ns ns
Skewness 1.495 -0.2192 0.01617
Kurtosis 3.844 -0.7203 0.614
Sum 26.69 22.67 22.34
ns: not significant

There are 2.10 (percentile limits 1.27, 3.02) pharmacists per pharmacy in Europe. Most countries show values grouped within a narrow range from 1.0 (Greece) to 2.4 (France). Three northern/central European countries have larger values: Denmark: 3.0, Slovenia: 3.1, and Austria: 4.1.

There are 4,598 assistants per country (percentiles 481, 30,516). Ratios compared to the EU linear regression estimation (table 6, 7) show 4 countries outside percentile limits: The Netherlands (2.21), Sweden (1.58), Ireland (0.26) and Slovenia (0.18). The median number of assistants per pharmacy is 1.63 (percentiles 0.43, 9.59, table 5) with a minimum of 0.3 (Ireland) and a maximum of 10.1 (Denmark) (table 4).

The education of assistants is carried out at a university faculty in three cases (Finland, Romania and Sweden); in all other cases education is given in a technical college or high school.

Hospital pharmacies and pharmacists

There are 115 hospital pharmacies per country (percentiles: 18, 662, n=23) and 375 hospital pharmacists (97, 4,159, n=24; table 2). There are 92,174 persons per hospital pharmacy and 28,669 per hospital pharmacist (tables 8, 9).

Table 8.

Hospital pharmacies and hospital pharmacists (NA: data not available).

  Hospital pharmacies Population / hospital pharmacy Hospital pharmacists Population / hospital pharmacist
Austria NA   292 28,767
Belgium 267 40,449 500 21,600
Bulgaria NA   114 66,667
Czech Republic 86 122,093 220 47,727
Denmark 15 366,667 270 20,370
Estonia 23 56,522 100 13,000
Finland 224 24,107 545 9908
France 2,594 24,942 5,574 11,607
Germany 438 186,758 1,890 43,280
Greece 115 98,261 302 37,417
Hungary 115 86,957 350 28,571
Ireland 76 59,211 474 9,494
Italy 297 203,367 2,745 22,004
Latvia 38 57,895 94 23,404
Lithuania 54 61,111 NA  
Malta 8 50,000 120 3,333
Netherlands 100 166,000 400 41,500
Poland 708 53,814 1,100 34,636
Portugal 115 92,174 738 14,363
Rumania 594 36,195 692 31,069
Slovakia 50 108,000 159 33,962
Slovenia 29 186,207 78 69,231
Spain 288 163,889 1,612 29,280
Sweden 73 127,397 200 46,500
United Kingdom 505 122,772 6,213 9,979
NA: data not available

Table 9.

Hospital pharmacies and hospital pharmacists: statistical analysis

  Hospital pharmacies Population / hospital pharmacy Hospital pharmacists Population / hospital pharmacist
Number of values 23 23 24 24
Median 115 92,174 375 28,669
10% Percentile 18 29,443 97 9,701
90% Percentile 662 196,723 4,159 57,197
Mean 296 108,469 1,033 29,070
Standard deviation 539 78,648 1,635 17,363
Standard error 112 16,399 334 3,544
KS normality test        
KS distance 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.09
P value <0,0001 >0,10 <0,0001 >0,10
Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)? No Yes No Yes
P value summary *** ns *** ns
Skewness 4 2 2 0.7
Kurtosis 16 4 6 0.3
Sum 6,812 2,000,000 24,782 697,669
ns: not significant.
***: P<0.001

Ratios compared to the EU linear regression estimation show 4 countries outside percentiles limits (0.36, 2.50) for hospital pharmacies: Denmark (0.19), Italy (0.35), Finland (2.96) and France (2.86), and 4 for hospital pharmacists: Slovenia (0.28), Bulgaria (0.29), Ireland (2.03) and Malta (5.77), (tables 10, 11).

Table 10.

Hospital pharmacies and hospital pharmacists: actual data as a ratio of the EU linear regression estimation (NA: data not available).

  Hospital pharmacies Hospital pharmacists
Austria NA 0.67
Belgium 1.77 0.89
Bulgaria NA 0.29
Czech Republic 0.59 0.4
Denmark 0.19 0.94
Estonia 1.26 1.48
Finland 2.96 1.94
France 2.86 1.66
Germany 0.38 0.44
Greece 0.73 0.51
Hungary 0.82 0.67
Ireland 1.21 2.03
Italy 0.35 0.87
Latvia 1.23 0.82
Lithuania 1.17 NA
Malta 1.43 5.77
Netherlands 0.43 0.46
Poland 1.33 0.56
Portugal 0.77 1.34
Rumania 1.97 0.62
Slovakia 0.66 0.57
Slovenia 0.38 0.28
Spain 0.44 0.66
Sweden 0.56 0.41
United Kingdom 0.58 1.93
NA: data not available

Table 11.

Hospital pharmacies and hospital pharmacists: actual data as a ratio of the EU linear regression estimation: statistical analysis

  Hospital pharmacies Hospital pharmacists
Number of values 23 24
Median 0.77 0.67
10% Percentile 0.362 0.345
90% Percentile 2.504 1.985
Mean 1.047 1.092
Standard deviation 0.7559 1.135
Standard error 0.1576 0.2317
Lower 95% CI of mean 0.7196 0.6128
Upper 95% CI of mean 1.373 1.571
KS normality test    
KS distance 0.183 0.2616
P value 0.0443 0.0002
Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)? No No
P value summary * ***
Skewness 1.359 3.293
Kurtosis 1.463 12.98
Sum 24.07 26.21
*: P<0.05
***: P<0.001

Industrial pharmacists

The median number of industrial pharmacists is 737 (percentiles 35, 5,276) with 13,831 (percentiles of 7,188 and 53,338) persons per industrial pharmacist (table 2).

Other activities and occupations

The median number of pharmacists in other occupations is 400 (percentiles 75, 6,877) (table 2).

Higher education institutions (HEIs)

There are 195 public HEIs in the EU with 144 (74%) in the 8 larger countries (tables 12, 13). There are 12 private HEIs: 1 each in Ireland and Romania, 4 in Portugal and 6 in Spain. Ratios compared to the EU linear regression estimation show 3 countries outside percentile limits (0.55, 2.36): Czech Republic (0.51), The Netherlands (0.33) and Malta (6.76) (tables 14, 15). It should be noted that the actual numbers of HEIs in these 3 countries are low.

Table 12.

Higher education institutions, staff and students: data (NA: data not available).

  Number HEIs Staff Staff / HEI Students Students / staff Students / pharmacist
Austria 3 58 19 NA    
Belgium 9 185 21 1000 27 0.075
Bulgaria 3 200 67 334 8 0.047
Czech Republic 2 190 95 430 11 0.068
Denmark 2 90 45 230 13 0.063
Estonia 1 14 14 48 17 0.031
Finland 3 300 100 475 8 0.155
France 24 NA   3,337   0.044
Germany 22 NA   NA    
Greece 3 90 30 400 22 0.031
Hungary 4 NA   NA    
Ireland 3 91 30 150 8 0.037
Italy 32     NA    
Latvia 2 115 58 86 4 0.043
Lithuania 1 185 185 96 3 0.030
Malta 1 10 10 48 24 0.077
Netherlands 2 NA   NA    
Poland 10 1,446 145 1658 6 0.073
Portugal 9 952 106 1021 5 0.094
Rumania 10 1000 100 2500 13 0.174
Slovakia 2 NA   NA    
Slovenia 1 65 65 181 14 0.112
Spain 19 1865 98 3168 8 0.051
Sweden 2 170 85 270 8 0.084
United Kingdom 25 902 36 3500 19 0.111
NA: data not available

Table 13.

Higher education institutions, staff and students: statistical analysis.

  Number HEIs Staff Staff / HEI Students Students / staff Students / pharmacist
Number of values 25 20 20 19 19 19
Median 3.0 185 61.5 400 8 0.06849
10% Percentile 1.0 18.4 14.5 48 3 0.03068
90% Percentile 24.4 1437 141.1 3337 24 0.1547
Mean 7.8 464.1 67.55 996.4 11.47 0.07376
Standard deviation 9.129 567.7 46.53 1213 7.449 0.04088
Standard error 1.826 126.9 10.41 278.3 1.709 0.009379
KS normality test            
KS distance 0.3014 0.3291 0.136 0.2979 0.2058 0.1534
P value < 0.0001 < 0.0001 > 0.10 0.0001 0.0333 > 0.10
Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)? No No Yes No No Yes
P value summary *** *** ns *** * ns
Skewness 1.475 1.319 0.8929 1.268 0.6478 1.156
Kurtosis 1.009 0.5114 0.5792 0.07911 -0.3417 0.9153
Sum 195 9282 1351 18931 218 1.401
ns: not significant
*: P<0.05
***: P<0.001

Table 14.

Higher education institutions. staff and students: actual data as a ratio of the EU linear regression estimation.

  Number HEIs Staff Students
Austria 0.97 0.26 NA
Belgium 2.25 0.66 1.61
Bulgaria 1.07 1.01 0.76
Czech Republic 0.51 0.69 0.71
Denmark 0.98 0.63 0.73
Estonia 2.08 0.41 0.64
Finland 1.5 2.13 1.53
France 1,00 NA 0.9
Germany 0.73 NA NA
Greece 0.72 0.3 0.62
Hungary 1.08 NA NA
Ireland 1.8 0.77 0.58
Italy 1.43 0.86 NA
Latvia 2.46 2,00 0.68
Lithuania 0.82 2.14 0.51
Malta 6.76 0.96 2.09
Netherlands 0.33 NA NA
Poland 0.71 1.45 0.76
Portugal 2.29 3.44 1.68
Rumania 1.26 1.78 2.02
Slovakia 1,00 NA NA
Slovenia 1.35 1.24 1.57
Spain 1.09 1.51 1.17
Sweden 0.58 0.7 0.51
United Kingdom 1.09 0.56 0.98
NA: data not available

Table 15.

Higher education institutions. staff and students: actual data as a ratio of the EU linear regression estimation: statistical analysis.

  Number HEIs Staff Students
Number of values 25 20 19
Median 1.08 0.91 0.76
10% Percentile 0.552 0.311 0.51
90% Percentile 2.358 2.139 2.02
Mean 1.434 1.175 1.055
Standard deviation 1.249 0.7993 0.5247
Standard error 0.2497 0.1787 0.1204
KS normality test      
KS distance 0.239 0.1818 0.2395
P value 0.0007 0.0822 0.0054
Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)? No Yes No
P value summary *** ns **
Skewness 3.467 1.315 0.8148
Kurtosis 14.44 1.897 -0.7723
Sum 35.86 23.5 20.05
ns: not significant
**: P<0.01
***: P<0.001

In 12 countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) HEIs are independent faculties. In 5 countries (Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal and United Kingdom) HEIs are part of a science department. In 7 countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta and Romania) HEIs are part of a medical department. In Greece Athens has an independent faculty, Thessaloniki and Patras have faculties within the school of Health Sciences.

Staff

An EU country has 185 staff teaching pharmacy (percentiles: 18.4, 1,437) with 62 staff per HEI (percentiles: 14.5, 141) (table 13). Ratios compared to the EU linear regression estimation show 2 countries outside percentile limits (0.31, 2.10): Austria (0.26) and Portugal (3.44) (table 14).

Students

An EU country has 400 pharmacy students (percentiles: 48, 3,337) with 8 students per staff member (percentiles: 3.0, 24) (table 13). Ratios compared to the EU linear regression estimation show no countries outside percentile limits (tables 14, 15). There are 0.068 students per working pharmacist (percentiles: 0.031, 0.174) (table 13).

Courses

In opposition to the data above, data relating to percentage of the 7 subject areas in the course were almost all of normal distribution (tables 16, 17). Medical sciences (MEDSCI) represent the main subject area (28%) followed by chemical sciences (CHEMSCI: 24%), pharmaceutical technology (PHARMTECH: 15%), biological sciences (BIOLSCI: 11%), physics/mathematics (PHYSMATH: 6.4%), generic subjects (GENERIC: 6.4%) and law/society/ethics (LAWSOC: 6.2%).

Table 16.

Subject areas in %: reported data.

  CHEMSCI PHYSMATH BIOLSCI PHARMTECH MEDISCI LAWSOC GENERIC
Austria 44.0 2.0 22.0 14.0 16.0 0.60 1.00
Belgium 24.0 9.0 11.0 18.0 27.0 2.00 8.00
Bulgaria 31.0 7.0 11.0 13.0 24.0 7.00 7.00
Czech Republic 17.0 5.0 8.0 22.0 19.0 13.00 16.00
Denmark 42.0 7.0 7.0 16.0 16.0 9.00 3.00
Estonia 21.0 4.0 2.0 21.0 39.0 10.00 3.00
Finland 20.0 5.6 2.5 21.9 28.8 15.60 5.60
France 17.6 9.5 17.9 5.9 42.0 2.20 5.00
Germany 39.8 4.5 10.9 13.4 28.3 2.10 3.80
Greece 39.3 5.8 14.2 8.2 15.9 2.70 14.00
Hungary 27.2 5.2 5.2 16.0 28.5 3.88 14.22
Ireland 13.6 11.1 7.1 18.3 35.5 7.30 7.10
Italy 32.4 7.2 10.4 9.1 31.5 4.80 2.20
Latvia 27.7 6.4 6.4 20.2 26.6 8.50 6.40
Lithuania 28.0 2.6 11.7 11.7 36.4 9.80 9.80
Malta 15.4 7.2 12.7 15.4 30.8 3.60 15.00
Netherlands 20.1 3.9 10.6 14.2 31.1 8.30 11.80
Poland 21.3 4.1 8.0 15.9 38.2 6.20 6.20
Portugal 19.6 6.8 14.6 14.9 32.2 12.00 1.20
Rumania 26.1 8.7 15.8 14.1 24.9 3.70 6.60
Slovakia 28.8 8.8 10.9 14.4 27.6 3.40 6.00
Slovenia 27.0 8.5 8.5 22.0 21.0 8.50 4.70
Spain 23.5 5.5 19.9 11.0 27.6 5.50 7.00
Sweden 18.3 11.3 12.8 19.5 21.5 11.80 5.00
United Kingdom 13.6 5.7 23.9 22.7 23.9 3.40 6.80
CHEMSCI: chemical sciences
PHYSMATH: physics, mathematics
BIOLSCI: biological sciences
PHARMTECH: pharmaceutical technology
MEDISCI: medical sciences
LAWSOC: law, society, ethics
GENERIC: generic subjects, traineeship

Table 17.

Subject areas in %: statistical analysis.

  CHEMSCI PHYSMATH BIOLSCI PHARMTECH MEDISCI LAWSOC GENERIC
Number of values 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Median 24 6.4 11 15 28 6.2 6.4
10% Percentile 15 3.4 4.1 8.7 16 2.1 1.8
90% Percentile 41 10 21 22 39 12 15
Mean 26 6.5 11 16 28 6.6 7.1
Standard deviation 8.7 2.4 5.5 4.6 7.2 4 4.2
Standard error 1.7 0.48 1.1 0.91 1.4 0.79 0.85
KS normality test              
KS distance 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.081 0.15 0.22
P value >0.10 >0.10 >0.10 >0.10 >0.10 >0.10 0.004
Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
P value summary ns ns ns ns ns ns **
Skewness 0.7 0.23 0.55 -0.23 0.071 0.51 0.78
Kurtosis -0.29 -0.35 0.19 -0.48 -0.5 -0.54 -0.13
Sum 638 162 285 393 693 165 176
ns: not significant
**: P<0.01

When subject area percentages were tested for correlations amongst them, the only significant correlation (negative) emerging was that between medical and chemical sciences (figure 1). Some countries had a more “medical” course: MEDSCI % / CHEMSCI % = 2.38 for France, 1.85 for Estonia and 1.79 for Poland. Others had more “chemical” courses: MEDSCI % / CHEMSCI % = 0.71 for Germany, 0.40 for Greece, 0.38 for Denmark, 0.36 for Austria.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Relationship between MEDSCI and CHEMSCI. (CHEMSCI: chemical sciences; MEDISCI: medical sciences)

Traineeship

Traineeship was mainly in community pharmacy (58%) with 26% in hospital and 16% in industrial settings (details see tables 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and figure 2). Traineeship was mainly in the fifth year (74%) but some countries such as Finland, France, Germany, Hungary and Malta started significant traineeship early - in the first or second year.

Table 18.

Traineeship – community (hours): reported data.

  Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Austria 0 0 0 0 0
Belgium 0 0 0 0 1000
Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 800
Czech Republic 40 0 0 0 960
Denmark 0 0 0 1040 0
Estonia 0 0 0 0 410
Finland 0 520 520 0 0
France 0 320 80 80 0
Germany 160 160 0 0 800
Greece 0 0 0 0 960
Hungary 0 140 140 140 560
Ireland 0 0 0 0 960
Italy 0 0 0 250 500
Latvia 0 0 0 0 648
Lithuania 0 0 0 0 935
Malta 84 84 84 42 1000
Netherlands 0 0 0 160 0
Poland 0 0 160 0 0
Portugal 0 0 0 39 640
Rumania 60 60 60 60 780
Spain 0 0 0 0 450
Slovakia 0 0 0 160 800
Slovenia 0 0 0 0 720
Sweden 0 0 0 0 1040
United Kingdom 12 80 0 0 0

Table 19.

Traineeship – community (hours): statistical analysis.

  Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Number of values 25 25 25 25 25
Median 0 0 0 0 648
10% Percentile 0 0 0 0 0
90% Percentile 69.6 224 148 196 1000
Mean 14.24 56.48 41.76 78.84 558.5
Standard deviation 37.04 122.1 109.7 211.4 394.4
Standard error 7.408 24.41 21.95 42.28 78.87
KS normality test          
KS distance 0.4497 0.3582 0.4082 0.3546 0.2016
P value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0101
Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)? No No No No No
P value summary *** *** *** *** *
Skewness 3.111 2.902 3.794 4.247 -0.4686
Kurtosis 10.25 8.957 16.02 19.49 -1.373
Sum 356 1,412 1,044 1,971 13,963
*: P<0.05
***: P<0.001

Table 20.

Traineeship – hospital (hours): reported data.

  Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Austria 0 0 0 0 0
Belgium 0 0 0 0 0
Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 800
Czech Republic 0 80 0 0 0
Denmark 0 0 0 0 0
Estonia 0 0 0 0 90
Finland 0 0 0 0 0
France 0 0 0 0 960
Germany 160 160 0 0 800
Greece 0 0 0 0 960
Hungary 0 0 140 140 140
Ireland 0 0 0 0 960
Italy 0 0 0 250 500
Latvia 0 0 0 0 648
Lithuania 0 0 0 0 40
Malta 0 0 80 500 0
Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0
Poland 0 0 0 160 0
Portugal 0 0 0 0 320
Rumania 0 0 0 0 0
Spain 0 0 0 0 450
Slovakia 0 0 0 0 0
Slovenia 0 0 0 0 0
Sweden 0 0 0 0 0
United Kingdom 6 12 12 0 0

Table 21.

Traineeship – hospital (hours): statistical analysis.

  Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Number of values 25 25 25 25 25
Median 0 0 0 0 0
10% Percentile 0 0 0 0 0
90% Percentile 2.4 39.2 39.2 196 960
Mean 6.64 10.08 9.28 42 266.7
Standard deviation 31.97 35.12 31.62 114.3 369.1
Standard error 6.394 7.024 6.323 22.86 73.83
KS normality test          
KS distance 0.5023 0.4929 0.4954 0.4833 0.2904
P value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)? No No No No No
P value summary *** *** *** *** ***
Skewness 4.989 3.856 3.683 3.217 1.001
Kurtosis 24.92 15.2 13.57 11.08 -0.6776
Sum 166 252 232 1,050 6,668
***: P<0.001

Table 22.

Traineeship – industry (hours): reported data.

  Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Austria 0 0 0 0 0
Belgium 0 0 0 0 1,000
Bulgaria 0 0 0 0 0
Czech Republic 0 0 0 0 0
Denmark 0 0 0 0 0
Estonia 0 0 0 0 0
Finland 0 0 0 0 0
France 0 0 320 0 0
Germany 160 160 0 0 800
Greece 0 0 0 0 0
Hungary 0 0 140 140 0
Ireland 0 0 0 0 960
Italy 0 0 0 250 500
Latvia 0 0 0 0 0
Lithuania 0 0 0 0 0
Malta 0 0 80 500 0
Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0
Poland 0 0 0 0 0
Portugal 0 0 0 0 0
Rumania 0 0 0 0 0
Spain 0 0 100 100 100
Slovakia 0 0 0 0 0
Slovenia 0 0 0 0 0
Sweden 0 0 0 0 0
United Kingdom 0 0 0 0 0

Table 23.

Traineeship – industry (hours): statistical analysis.

  Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Number of values 25 25 25 25 25
Median 0 0 0 0 0
10% Percentile 0 0 0 0 0
90% Percentile 0 0 116 184 864
Mean 6.4 6.4 25.6 39.6 134.4
Standard deviation 32 32 71.3 112.3 314.2
Standard error 6.4 6.4 14.26 22.47 62.85
KS normality test          
KS distance 0.5393 0.5393 0.4802 0.4778 0.4656
P value <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Passed normality test (alpha=0.05)? No No No No No
P value summary *** *** *** *** ***
Skewness 5 5 3.403 3.413 2.199
Kurtosis 25 25 12.6 12.4 3.428
Sum 160 160 640 990 3360
***: P<0.001

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Traineeship : hours per year for individual countries (each bar represents a country).

Analysis revealed medians that were often equal to zero given the large number of zeros in a given category.

Discussion

A total of 419,353 pharmacists work in the 25 EU countries surveyed. This gives a mean value of 16,774 pharmacists per country with a median of 6,278. The mean and median are very different as the distribution of the data is highly skewed. This is due to the fact that the population of the EU (n=25) - 501 million - is roughly distributed into larger and smaller countries. Twenty % of the population of the EU lives in 17 smaller countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden, and 80% lives in 8 larger countries: France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and United Kingdom. As a consequence of this, many of the analyses are presented using medians. Furthermore, data were also analysed by separating countries into two groups – larger and smaller countries – but no significant differences were observed between the two groups.

Community pharmacies and community, hospital and industrial pharmacists are unevenly distributed in the EU (table 24), some countries having ratios of reported number / EU linear regression estimation of >0.5 (i.e. less than half the number to be expected from the population of the country), and some with ratios of >1.5 (i.e. 1.5x or more the number expected).

Table 24.

Countries with extremes of ratios of reported data / EU linear regression estimation.

Ratios of reported data / EU linear regression estimation Community pharmacies Community pharmacists Hopital pharmacists Industrial pharmacists
0.5 and lower Sweden, Slovenia, Denmark,
The Netherlands, Finland
Sweden, Slovenia, Denmark,
The Netherlands, Finland
Slovenia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Sweden, Germany, The Netherlands
Czech Republic, Romania,
Greece, Estonia, UK, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovakia
1.5 and greater Spain, Belgium Spain, Malta, Belgium,
Bulgaria, Greece
France, UK, Finland,
Ireland, Malta
Hungary, Sweden, Bulgaria,
Latvia, Finland, Malta, Spain, Denmark

Most (70%) of pharmacists work as community pharmacists with the tasks reported in table 3. In order to evaluate whether pharmacy education and training is adapted to needs, correlations were calculated between the numbers of community pharmacists and the number of HEIs and pharmacy students. These were highly significant in both cases: r2=0.77 (P<0.0001) and 0.75 (P<0.0001), respectively. Thus in terms of numbers of future pharmacists, EU HEIs appear to be connected to the needs.

Pharmacists working in hospitals and industry have clearly identified roles and competences (table 3). In order to evaluate whether pharmacy education and training is adapted to such needs, correlations were calculated between the ratios of hospital and industrial pharmacists (reported number / EU linear regression estimation) and the ratio CHEMSCI+PHARMTECH / MEDSCI. It was argued that countries with higher numbers of hospital pharmacists would have courses more oriented towards medical sciences: MEDSCI (human anatomy and physiology, medical terminology, pharmacology, pharmacognosy, pharmacotherapy / therapeutics, toxicology, pathology, histology, microbiology, nutrition, non-pharmacological treatment, haematology, immunology, parasitology, hygiene, emergency therapy, clinical chemistry / bio-analysis (of body fluids), radiochemistry, dispensing process, drug prescription, prescription analysis (detection of adverse effects and drug interactions), generic drugs, planning, running and interpretation of the data of clinical trials, medical devices, orthopaedics, OTC medicines, complementary therapy, at-home support and care, skin illness and treatment, homeopathy, phytotherapy, drugs in veterinary medicine, pharmaceutical care, pharmaceutical therapy of illness and disease). Likewise those with higher numbers of industrial pharmacists would have courses more oriented toward chemical sciences: CHEMSCI (general, organic & inorganic chemistry, analytical chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry / pharmacopeia analysis, medicinal physic-chemistry / SAR / drug design) and pharmaceutical technology: PHARMTECH (galenic formulation / pharmaceutics, drug disposition and metabolism (ADME) / pharmacokinetics, novel drug delivery systems, drug design, pharmaceutical R&D, drug production, quality assurance in production, drug / new chemical entity registration and regulation, common technical document (quality (pharmaceutical), safety (safety pharmacology and toxicology), efficacy (preclinical and clinical studies)), ophthalmic preparations, medical gases, cosmetics, management strategy in industry, economics of the pharmaceutical industry and R&D). In neither case were correlations significant: hospital pharmacists r2=0.15, P=0.069, industrial pharmacists r2=0.12, P=0.115. At the extremes, however, courses were oriented. Thus Ireland with a ratio for hospital pharmacists of 2.03 (twice as many hospital pharmacists as to be expected from the EU linear regression estimation) had a CHEMSCI+PHARMTECH / MEDSCI ratio of 0.38. Denmark with a ratio for industrial pharmacists of 4.47 (4.5 times as many industrial pharmacists as to be expected from the EU linear regression estimation) had a CHEMSCI+PHARMTECH / MEDSCI ratio of 3.63.

A couple of provisos have to be added, however. Firstly, whilst community pharmacists are registered by their national chamber and thus their numbers are accurately known, this is often not the case for hospital or industrial pharmacists and thus their numbers may be less accurate. Secondly, whilst the content of the degree course for community pharmacists is fixed by the annex of the EU directive 2005/36 (see above), this is not the case for hospital and industrial pharmacists. A large variety in the course proposed is observed. In France future hospital pharmacists have extensive pre-graduate training in hospital pharmacy and also undergo a 4-year hospital internship. In other countries there is little specific pre- or post-graduate training for either hospital or industrial pharmacists. The latter are simply defined by their place of work and their roles and responsibilities (table 3).

The PHARMINE survey revealed that there is a median of 4598 assistants per country and 1.63 assistants / community pharmacist. Three countries were unable to reply to questions on assistants as the status of such persons is not clearly established in these countries. In most EU countries the main task of assistants is to take care of medicine storage, logistics, invoicing and management of pharmacy IT systems and other such tasks. Their training, which is performed at a high school or college, includes basic modules in chemistry and in physics, healthcare, hygiene, management, economics, bookkeeping, etc.

The education of assistants is carried out at university in three cases (Finland, Romania and Sweden). Taking the case of Finland (http://www.pharmine.org/losse_paginas/Country_Profiles/Finland/) following the Bologna declaration (http://enzu.pharmine.org/media/filebook/files/Bologna%20declaration.pdf), pharmacy education is divided into two parts. All the students follow the same curriculum the first three years and graduate with a bachelor degree. Approximately one third of the students continue additional two years to graduate with the master degree, devoted mainly to chemical and medical sciences, generic subjects and pharmaceutical technology, and medical sciences. Those graduating with a bachelor degree have tasks similar to those of pharmacists, but these do not include pharmacy ownership, management or in-depth scientific issues. The main focus is in customer service and patient counselling. In summary, in Finland, both B.Sc. and M.Sc. graduates are involved in dispensation and counselling. Ownership of a pharmacy and/or a position of responsible pharmacist are restricted to M.Sc. graduates.

Traineeship is mainly in a community / hospital setting (84%) and mainly in the fifth and final year, although several countries introduce traineeship earlier – some in the first year of the degree. In most countries the length of the course is 5 years. There is thus integration of traineeship into the degree course. In some countries (Austria, UK) the course is shorter. Following graduation pharmacists undergo a pre-registration training period that is validated by the national chamber or agency.

In conclusion, the PHARMINE survey of pharmacy and pharmacy education in Europe produced country profiles with extensive information for each country in the EU and several other European countries. These data are available at: http://www.pharmine.org/losse_paginas/Country_Profiles/. This 2011 PHARMINE report represents a presentation of the project and the data and some preliminary analysis on the basic question of how pharmacy education is adapted to pharmacy practice in the EU.

This is the 2011 report for the EU. Further reports will be edited in the future as the data is completed, data from other European countries are obtained, situations in individual countries change, etc. Further reports will also deal with other subjects such as the impact of the Bologna declaration and of the EC directives on organisation of university studies, and quality assurance in European pharmacy education.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the following members of the PHARMINE (“PHARMacy Education IN Europe”) consortium: C. NOE, University of Vienna, AUSTRIA. B. ROMBAUT, H. HALEWIJCK and B. THYS, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Dept. Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Molecular Biology, BELGIUM. V. PETKOVA and S. NIKOLOV, University of Sofia, Faculty of Pharmacy; V. BELCHEVA, Sanofi-Aventis, BULGARIA. M. POLASEK, Faculty of Pharmacy, Charles University, CZECH REPUBLIC. U. MADSEN and B. FJALLAND, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Copenhagen; M. BRANDL, Faculty of Science, University of Southern Denmark; M. RINGKJØBING-ELEMA, EIPG / The Association of Danish Industrial Pharmacists, DENMARK. P. VESKI and D. VOLMER, Department of Pharmacy, University of Tartu, ESTONIA. J. HIRVONEN and A. JUPPO, University of Helsinki, Faculty of Pharmacy, FINLAND. C. CAPDEVILLE-ATKINSON, Nancy University, FRANCE; A. MARCINCAL, Faculté de Pharmacie, Université de Lille 2; V. LACAMOIRE and I. BARON, Conseil National de l’Ordre des Pharmaciens, FRANCE. R. SÜSS and R. SCHUBERT, University of Freiburg, GERMANY. P. MACHERAS, E. MIKROS and D. M. REKKAS, School of Pharmacy, University of Athens; K. POULAS, School of Pharmacy, University of Patras, GREECE. G. SOOS and P. DORO, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Szeged, HUNGARY. T. KRISTMUNDSDOTTIR and A. B. ALMARSDOTTIR, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Iceland, ICELAND. J. STRAWBRIDGE and P. GALLAGHER, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin; L. HORGAN, Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, PSI - The Pharmacy Regulator, IRELAND. C. ROSSI, and P. BLASI Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Perugia, ITALY. R. MUCENIECE, Faculty of Medicine of University of Latvia; B. MAURINA, Faculty of Pharmacy; I. SAPROVSKA, Latvian Branch, European Industrial Pharmacists’ Group (EIPG), LATVIA. V. BRIEDIS and M. SAPRAGONIENE, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, LITHUANIA. L. M. AZZOPARDI and A. S. INGLOTT, University of Malta, Department of Pharmacy, MALTA. T. SCHALEKAMP, Utrecht University, Faculty of Science, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences; H. J. HAISMA, University of Groningen, School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, THE NETHERLANDS. K. M. ULSHAGEN, P. H. TUSVIK, L. TRELNES, Farmasøytisk Institutt, NORWAY. S. POLAK and R. JACHOWICZ, Faculty of Pharmacy with Division of Medicinal Analysis, Jagiellonian University Medical College, POLAND. J. A. G. MORAIS and A.M. CAVACO, Faculdade de Farmácia Universidade de Lisboa, PORTUGAL. C. MIRCIOIU and C. RAIS, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Carol Davila”, ROMANIA. J. KYSELOVIČ and M. REMKO, Faculty of Pharmacy, Comenius University, Odbojarov 10, Bratislava, 83232, SLOVAKIA. B. BOZIC and S. GOBEC, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Pharmacy, SLOVENIA. B. DEL CASTILLO-GARCIA, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid; L. RECALDE and A. SANCHEZ POZO, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad de Granada, SPAIN. R. HANSSON and E. BJÖRK, Faculty of Pharmacy, Uppsala University; G. TOBIN, Sahlgrenska Academy, SWEDEN. F. HINCAL and L. O. DEMIREZER, Hacettepe University Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmaceutical Toxicology, TURKEY. K. A WILSON, Aston Pharmacy School, Aston Triangle; G.B.LOCKWOOD, University of Manchester, School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences., UNITED KINGDOM. J. CHAVE, General Secretary, PGEU, Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union. J. NICHOLSON, General Secretary; EIPG, European Industrial Pharmacists Group. R. FRONTINI, President; EAHP, European Association of Hospital Pharmacists. The President, EPSA, European Pharmaceutical Students' Association.

Funding Statement

With the support of the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Union: 142078-LLP-1-2008-BE-ERASMUS-ECDSP and the European Association of Faculties of Pharmacy (EAFP), Belgium.

Contributor Information

Jeffrey Atkinson, Pharmacolor Consultants Nancy. Villers, (France)..

Bart Rombaut, European Association of Faculties of Pharmacy. Department of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussels. Brussels, (Belgium)..


Articles from Pharmacy Practice are provided here courtesy of Centro de Investigaciones y Publicaciones Farmaceuticas

RESOURCES