Programme handbook & assessment policy

Provider, certificate and recognition

Provider and certificate issuer

AUPAM Experts’ Office develops and delivers this programme and is the issuer of its assessed professional-training completion certificate. “Qualified Person Diploma” is the programme title. This edition does not claim a university degree, academic credit, EDA approval, or endorsement by the UK Joint Professional Bodies.

What the certificate demonstrates

A documented programme-completion decision against this handbook: five knowledge papers, an individual portfolio, an integrated written assessment and viva, and verified participation. The certificate states the programme edition, planned learning hours, completion date, unique record number and authorised signatory. A test-result printout is evidence of one assessment component only.

Recognition is a separate question

Training completion, academic accreditation, recognition of a provider, individual legal eligibility and appointment to a licensed role are different decisions. Any future recognition claim must name the recognising body, instrument, scope and validity period and link to verifiable evidence. A collaboration discussion or syllabus comparison is not evidence of approval.

Contact

Programme enquiries, support, assessment requests and appeals: o.abdelrahman@aupam.org. Course fees, cohort dates, delivery format and any reassessment charges must be disclosed before a learner accepts an enrolment offer.

Admission and readiness

Entry route

Applicants should hold a degree in pharmacy, chemistry, biology or a related pharmaceutical science, or present relevant professional qualifications and experience for an individual readiness review. Admission through this alternative route does not establish statutory QP qualification equivalence.

Readiness review

Before admission, review the applicant’s qualifications, current role and experience, English reading ability, and baseline understanding of GMP, basic chemistry, microbiology and calculations. Record evidence and a bridging plan for identified gaps. There is no automatic admission decision based on job title alone.

Language and access

English is the primary teaching and assessment language; Arabic explanations and terminology support learning. Agree reasonable access arrangements before assessment. Adjust format or access without removing the competence being assessed. Request only the information needed to arrange support.

Enrolment confirmation

The coordinator records the learner ID, cohort, admission decision, policy edition supplied, agreed access arrangements and acknowledgement. Prerequisite development may take additional time; it is not silently included in the 150-hour core.

150 hours: learning and assessment

The controlled allocation

The five course totals remain 30, 36, 30, 30 and 24 hours. The 150-hour core comprises 140.5 hours of guided learning, source study, cases and portfolio development plus 9.5 hours of formal assessment. The 45 topics remain. The controlled delivery map identifies where assessment time is reserved; it is not added again on top of the 150 hours.

Formal assessment windows

The five existing knowledge papers use 30, 45, 30, 30 and 30 minutes respectively: 165 minutes in total. The integrated capstone uses a 360-minute written assessment and a 45-minute individual viva: 405 minutes. Total formal assessment is 570 minutes. Film viewing remains inside the topic’s opening allocation.

How reserved time is delivered

Assessment reserves reduce the guided activity timings shown in the revised session guides. Deliver each knowledge paper in its stated supervised window. Consolidate the six written-capstone reserves into one controlled six-hour sitting after the relevant teaching; the topic allocations are a budget, not permission to release the examination in advance. Issue the staged evidence at the specified elapsed assessment time.

Participation and completion

Record attendance against scheduled facilitated minutes, with at least 90% participation in each course. Document approved equivalent make-up for missed learning. All mandatory learning outputs and assessments must be completed; a 90% attendance threshold does not waive missing competencies. An agreed asynchronous activity needs its output and review, not a page-open timestamp.

Hours that are separate

Breaks, tutor preparation, optional international extension work, prerequisites, additional remediation and repeat examinations are outside the 150-hour first-attempt plan. Record actual delivery time and explain variations. Parallel viva panels reduce elapsed cohort time, not the individual candidate’s 45-minute assessment allocation.

A single completion standard

Five knowledge papers

Pass every paper with more than 80% correct answers. The integer pass mark is floor(0.8 × number of questions) + 1: 17/20 or 25/30 for the existing papers. Exactly 80% does not pass a knowledge paper. Retain the server result and the invigilator’s identity, date and paper version.

Individual portfolio

Submit one identifiable output for each of the 45 topics. Assess four dimensions on a 0–2 scale: evidence and source use; scientific reasoning; decision and follow-up; clear, authentic communication. Each output requires at least 6/8, no dimension scored zero, and no unresolved critical safety or integrity concern. A group product needs the learner’s own decision record and an individual check.

Portfolio anchors

0 = absent, materially incorrect or unsupported. 1 = partly sound but incomplete; improvement is needed. 2 = correct, justified, traceable and appropriate to the stated scope. Give a specific improvement action when evidence is insufficient. Browser review ticks are formative prompts and are not assessor marks.

Integrated capstone and viva

Score the written dossier out of 60 and the viva out of 40. Require at least 80/100 overall, at least 42/60 written and at least 28/40 viva, with no unresolved critical error. Use the controlled assessor guide and an unseen, independently checked variant; published practice cases are for preparation.

Critical errors and fair decisions

A critical error is an evidenced decision or omission that could permit unsafe or unauthorised supply, conceal relevant data, or misrepresent certification. Record the exact evidence and affected competence; do not invent a critical error from a minor wording difference. A second assessor reviews any critical-error decision, borderline outcome or contested judgement.

No compensating average

A high score in one area does not compensate for a failed knowledge paper, incomplete portfolio, failed capstone threshold, unresolved critical error or missing required participation. The coordinator completes the evidence checks and an authorised reviewer signs the final completion decision. The older proposed 30/40/30 course-weighting model is superseded by this programme-wide standard.

Feedback, reassessment and appeals

Feedback

Provide the outcome, component scores, criterion-based feedback and required next steps within ten working days of a completed assessment, or communicate a reasoned revised date. Release teaching feedback without disclosing a secure question bank or another learner’s records.

Reassessment

Permit two reassessment opportunities for an unsuccessful component after documented remediation. Use fresh questions or evidence of equivalent difficulty and an observed defence where professional judgement was unsafe. Preserve the original attempt and every subsequent attempt; never overwrite a failed result. More than two reassessments requires a documented individual learning and re-enrolment decision.

Administrative integrity

Distinguish an invalidated sitting caused by a documented technical or administrative failure from a failed attempt. Record who made that decision and why. A new sitting must not be used to erase an unfavourable valid result. Do not promise that the current browser application enforces attempt limits or verifies identity automatically.

Appeal route

A learner may submit an appeal within ten working days of receiving the result, identifying the procedural or assessment concern and supporting evidence. Acknowledge within five working days. A reviewer who did not make the disputed decision considers it and normally responds within twenty working days; explain any extension and the revised date.

Academic integrity

Declare assistance and sources in practice work. Generative AI or other assistance is not permitted in a controlled assessment unless the assessment brief expressly allows it and specifies disclosure. Investigate concerns fairly, preserve relevant evidence and allow the learner to respond before deciding an outcome.

Records, privacy and certificate verification

Official programme record

The coordinator maintains one controlled cohort master: learner identity and admission; participation and make-up; 45 portfolio decisions; all knowledge attempts; capstone marks; moderation; appeals; and certificate issue. The examination application already has a shared-record service; check its save status and reconcile its reports with the cohort master. Live-lecture notes remain a browser working notebook. Export those records promptly; browser storage alone is not the official gradebook.

Operational controls

Assign a named custodian and authorised reviewers. Keep the master and evidence in an access-controlled organisational location, with version history or dated snapshots and a separately held backup. Record corrections with old value, new value, reason, editor and date. Spreadsheets and local file copies do not by themselves provide access control or an immutable audit trail.

Privacy and retention

Use learner IDs on working registers and keep identity details separately where practical. Collect only necessary information. Share individual results privately. Before enrolment, issue the applicable privacy notice and a documented retention schedule that considers the relevant jurisdiction, partner obligations and appeals. Do not upload confidential manufacturing, patient or employer data into training examples.

Certificate issue and enquiries

Issue a certificate only after an authorised completion review. Record its unique identifier, learner, programme edition, issue date and signatory. Verification is handled through the programme contact against the issue register; no public QR-verification service or regulatory register entry is claimed.

Future learning-management system

A future central system should provide individual accounts, role-based access, server-held attendance and assessment records, versioned rubrics, complete attempt history, corrections, backups and controlled certificate verification. Validate migration by reconciling record counts, scores, attempts and evidence links. Do not treat a tracking standard or LMS installation as proof of assessment validity.

Regulatory basis and document status

Egypt: the supplied QP guideline

The Egyptian QP document supplied with the course is watermarked DRAFT. This edition does not establish a final operative QP decision, provider recognition or an individual appointment route from that draft. Retain the draft label on the document, its link and related teaching notes.

Final instruments

Before making a final-decision claim, verify the issuing authority, official text, instrument number, publication date, effective date, scope and later amendments. The end of a consultation does not establish that a final text has been issued. A signed decision and an implementation guideline can have different status and dates.

International comparators

EU GMP, ICH, WHO and PIC/S support technical learning in their stated scope; national adoption and licensed responsibilities must be checked separately. UK competency mapping is a development reference and does not establish eligibility or endorsement of this course.

Version control

A named scientific reviewer checks the source register before each cohort and when a relevant change is notified. Record the source link, version, legal status, scope, effective date, review date, affected sessions and action. Teach a draft as a draft and a future-effective text as future-effective.

Teaching quality and programme review

Competence mapping

The revised map links all 45 topics to their learning mission, individual output, review criteria and source. Use it for the baseline diagnostic, feedback, missing-evidence review and final portfolio reconciliation.

Moderation

Before a cohort, calibrate assessors on at least three contrasting anonymised practice responses. During delivery, moderate all failed or borderline capstones and all critical-error decisions, plus a sample of other assessments. Record disagreements, their resolution and any rubric clarification without changing published standards retrospectively.

Pilot and external review

Use the supplied pilot and independent-review record before the first assessed cohort. Check actual timing, difficulty, accessibility, evidence sufficiency and agreement between assessors. No external review, accreditation or pilot outcome is asserted until an identified reviewer has completed and signed the record.

Policy control

Version 3.0, dated 8 September 2026, is the current provider-designed programme policy. It supersedes earlier conflicting assessment and hour-allocation proposals for new cohorts using this edition. Preserve earlier materials as teaching resources and historical records. Communicate any material change before enrolment; do not retrospectively disadvantage an enrolled learner.

Source and status notes

Royal College of Pharmacy — Qualified persons
Checked 8 September 2026. Eligibility route and distinction between preparation courses and professional-body assessment.

European Commission — EudraLex Volume 4
Checked 8 September 2026. Official register of EU GMP chapters and annexes; apply the stated product and jurisdiction scope.

Egyptian Drug Authority — QP draft consultation announcement
Official EDA announcement of consultation on a draft, with a 1 September 2026 response deadline. This is not evidence of a subsequent final decision.

Supplied EDA QP document
Course source file. Draft watermark retained. Final instrument number, effect and recognition remain unverified in this edition.