It’s everybody’s worst nightmare isn’t it? You’re in an interview for a job you really want and it all starts going wrong. Whether it’s your phone ringing or you’re giving the longest, most irrelevant answer to an interview question ever, once things start going wrong it feels like there’s no way back. However, it is possible to get things back on track and limit the damage during the actual interview. You can also follow up with certain steps that can help to rectify the situation afterwards so do not fear, some tips are here.

Whilst in the interview

• Try not to panic: Even if you’re convinced you’ve made a massive mistake in the middle of your interview, keep calm and carry on. The interviewers may not have even noticed, or if they have, they may be willing to allow it depending on how the rest of the interview goes.
• Don’t try too hard: Ok, so you’ve been had. You made a mistake and it hasn’t quite gone to plan but don’t overcompensate by trying too hard. If you do so, you’ll tighten up, get stressed and probably go on to make many more mistakes and then comes a downward spiral. Instead, focus on executing your original game plan for the interview and try to keep your breathing even.
• Don’t dwell on the mistake – move on: Yes, you may have made a mistake, but if you keep thinking about it for the rest of the interview, you’ll be distracted and that will make matters worse. Move this mistake to the back of your mind by listening carefully to what the interviewers are saying. This will help you remain in the moment instead of thinking about what just happened.
• Control those emotions: Even if you feel like bursting into tears because the interview is going so badly, try to keep yourself in check. Keep things in perspective—it’s a job interview, not a fight to the death. If you really are emotional, excuse yourself to the bathroom so you can take a moment.

Key follow-ups after the interview

• Say ‘thank you’ in a note / email: No matter how embarrassed you are because of a bad interview, still email a ‘thank you’ note to the interviewers. It can’t logically make matters worse and is a simple sign of acknowledgement and politeness. If you are really convinced there’s no way you’ve gotten the job, just think of sending a ‘thank you’ note as an act of closure.
• Get in touch with new thoughts: The last thing you may want to do after a disastrous interview is to email the interviewers with new thoughts or ideas about the interview topics. However, by emailing them with things that have occurred to you after the event, you may be salvaging the situation. In the clear light of day, your thoughts will be more lucid and will give the interviewers a more accurate idea of who you really are.
• Don’t be tempted to vent online: Don’t dismiss your opportunity to get this job because you think it didn’t go well. There is no excuse to jump on Facebook and rant about the bad experience. You never know exactly how you came across. There is always a chance that the interviewers will consider you seriously for the role and wouldn’t it be awful if they come across you online to see a negative display of your experience with them? Also don’t forget that other employers you’ve applied to may also be checking your online profiles.
• Be sure to move on: Speaking of your other applications, if you genuinely think the bad interview is a lost cause even after you’ve followed the above steps, don’t give up on your job search completely. Focus on the other applications you’ve made and how you’re going to improve upon your interview technique. If learning from your interview mistakes helps you to ace the next interview you get, the bad interview will at least have been worth something.

For further reading and advice on interviews you may find this “How to ace the interview” eGuide helpful.

About the author:

Nisa Chitakasem, co-founder of Career Change Specialists Position Ignition, which helps people with their career change, job search and career direction.

Pharmacists have identified Pfizer, Sanofi and Eli Lilly as the pharma companies that present the greatest difficulties in obtaining medicine supplies.

One-in-four (27%) pharmacists questioned in a survey by the Independent Pharmacy Federation (IPF) indicated Lilly as the most problematic, with 13% voting Sanofi and 12% naming Pfizer.

More than half (59%) of pharmacists said that more than five of their patients were affected by drug shortages in the past week.

The shortage has caused “real difficulties” says Fin McCaul, chair of the IPF, who hit out at manufacturers saying that pharmaceutical companies need to solve the problem.

Half of the pharmacists claimed they were spending up to three hours every week trying to obtain supplies from alternative sources.

“We cannot afford for pharmacists to be wasting three or four hours each week on this exercise when they need to be spending more time developing services for patients,” added Mr McCaul.

Stephen Whitehead, chief executive of the ABPI said: “Current challenges in the supply chain cannot be solved in isolation and will only be addressed by all healthcare partners working collaboratively to find an appropriate solution”.

The survey questioned more than 500 independent pharmacists. The IPF was originally set up in 2006 but was relaunched in June this year. The Federation has noted that independent pharmacies now account for 40% of the sector.

Click here to read Eli Lilly’s response to the survey.

Joint-working between pharma companies and clinical commissioning groups (CCG) could lead to GPs becoming commercially biased, a new report has warned.

The Quality of GP Prescribing suggests that doctors may favour medicines from pharma companies that offer discounts or preferential deals instead of cheaper generic alternatives.

Despite Government plans to increase joint-working in an attempt to reduce costs, the report by The King’s Fund says the approach “may not be truly cost effective”.

The report highlighted a study from Liverpool University academics in 2003 that found that almost half (49%) of practitioners said the pharmaceutical industry was their main influence on which new medicines they prescribed.

This compared to 17% of GPs who preferred to use academic and professional literature as their main source of information to forge an opinion.

The report also calls for “urgent revision” on the system which causes branded generics to undercut generic prices in the Category M basket of medicines.

Category M was introduced into the Drug Tariff six years ago to adjust the reimbursement prices of more than 500 medicines.

But The King’s Fund report says the current system can encourage a switch back to more expensive brand prescribing which counters years of favouring cheaper generics, and is also confusing for patients.