Over recent years I have been a critical friend of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS). I have repeatedly questioned its lack of ambition, some of its decisions that were seemingly designed to undermine its own credibility, and its lack of engagement with members. I have rather tiresomely advocated for it to fulfil its commitments made to members at the time of its establishment and transform into a formally constituted royal college.
Such calls have until now been met with ambivalent responses questioning the value, complexity and cost of such a journey, while concurrently seeking to reassure members that the RPS is already the effective de facto royal college for the profession.
Clearly, these sentiments did not ‘cut it’ with members, as the leadership watched the continued exodus of those who questioned the relevance of the RPS in supporting them in the advancement of their professional careers, or its advocacy to raise awareness and recognition of the profession and its public value.
This unfortunate hesitancy of professional leadership has seen the RPS come under pressure from its own disillusioned members, the growth of new and more relevant organisations in the pharmacy ecosystem, and the understandable concerns of key stakeholders and decision makers who have questioned its reducing membership, and therefore the credibility of its representation. Even former presidents — one in particular — have joined the call for seminal change.
We now have the monumental announcement on 12 September 2024 that the RPS has agreed to take the necessary steps to seek charitable status and officially formalise as the new Royal College of Pharmacy.
This is certainly the most significant decision it has taken since its establishment in 2010 and arguably since it was originally founded in 1841. It is a decision of courage and a sign of the confidence it has in itself and the profession, and one which deserves the fullest support from its members and others. It is absolutely the right decision, not just for the future of the RPS, but more importantly for every patient we serve, every pharmacist and every member of the wider pharmacy family.
What this means for pharmacy and those working in the profession will be the subject of much conversation and iteration over the coming months, before a special resolution vote by members in early 2025. It is vital that members, prospective members, specialist professional groups and other stakeholders are provided with ample opportunity to question, shape and understand the benefits and consequences of this far-reaching proposal. It is only through collaborative engagement that everyone will be able to have their views listened to and valued, and that our new Royal College of Pharmacy will be co-created with a clear prospectus and with the structures, expertise and capacity to deliver on its commitments.
Make no mistake, we are on the cusp of a profound and historic change in our professional leadership that will see pharmacy at last take its rightful place to stand firmly and proudly alongside other health and medical royal colleges. Bringing with it parity of esteem and a greater recognition of the value of our clinical expertise and our contribution to the health of the nation.
So — credit where it’s due — well done to the RPS, our prospective Royal College of Pharmacy. It has listened and stepped forward with a sound proposal.
It will continue to listen and learn, and it now deserves our enthusiastic support in shaping and delivering this exciting future for the leadership of our profession.
Steve Churton FRPharmS, former president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, writing in a personal capacity
2 comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
As a fellow Transitional Committee member I share Mr Churtons sentiments
It’s worrying that such a pivotal decision has so far generated little debate on here and there are no reports of local meetings to inform the membership of discussions.
I was close to following most of my contemporaries in leaving the Society but as a long term advocate of the Royal College idea I attended the Glasgow event as a swan song. I enjoyed seeing some past friends and meeting new ones as branches used to do.
I was hoping for inspiration and vision, but there was little of that in the presentations. Too much was about tinkering with Governance.
I have learned since the meeting that the leadership body is pushing for the college and set up a Nigel Clarke led Commission. This wants to coalesce GB and NI pharmacists and Technicians into one Council.
Some background of that would have helped inform the debate on member benefits.
Only about 30 people attended the event with few under the age of 30 so getting a two thirds majority of members won’t be easy unless the plan is to have low voting numbers.
A Royal College needs to promote member advancement and retain its history and experienced members to hep new ones learn from the past.
It would help to have explanations of how these professions will benefit from higher and common standards of service, guidelines or qualifications from a College and might develop close working relationships and new joint services.
The benefits of being a Charity were ignored but they could lead to lower fees.
Creative membership options need to be considered eg for part time practitioners or family groups or over 75s that could help growth.
There still seems no vision for any role of Fellows or better using Fellowship. Medical models do but don’t fit well as their fellowship is an NHS requirement for specialist practice.
The RCN model seems better suited but wasn’t one of these studied by the Commission. It has enhanced and consultant membership levels and includes midwives and assistants.
In my day the members drove the leadership and innovated in ways the Society could have utilised much more. The local branch democracy and some organisations suited to advanced practice have gone making life easier for HQ staff.
These days RPS feels more like a top down organisation that is not open about its membership numbers, age profile and areas of practice making planning hard to the membership. To leave FIP without any consultation suggests members views don’t count. These are not good messages.
The market for a member driven College is there with GPhC numbers growing by 1200 a year now at 62000 and 20000
Technicians also registered.
A College body serving all those should be growing. Surely it should be seen to be in all parties interests to coalesce quickly and for RPS to offer leadership and an olive branch in its College proposal rather that put it off yet again. It is ideally placed to offer a vision of how that could work with advanced practice for technicians
A change of culture and radical rethink is needed to motivate young members to devote time and effort to the new College and to professional cooperation.
In 1975 I set up the first UK wide pharmacy group in Drug Information and UKCPA soon followed. It benefited all countries and took only months to establish. Why has it taken so long for the whole profession to follow?
Could Schools of Pharmacy not play a more active professional role within the College?
A rebadged tinkering with existing Governance removing the Pharm Press won’t generate momentum for change in my view nor deliver the membership growth necessary to compensate for the estimated drop of around 600 members a year.
A lot of suggestions came from attenders in Glasgow.
I hope the final proposal takes these ideas and those at other events on board to offer a clearer vision of what the college will do, the member benefits and possible future joint opportunities
There is a danger the vibrant leadership body of the 90s and noughties will fade into oblivion taking its history with it. The UK Governments. the GPhC, the public, pharmacists and technicians and other professions will suffer the consequences. It must not be allowed to happen. Time to smell the coffee, this may well be the last chance saloon otherwise.
Dear Howard,
Thank you very much for your comments. If you would like to share your feedback directly with the RPS team overseeing the proposals for change, you can do so using their email address: feedback@rpharms.com
Kind regards,
PJ team