From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS
We should be grateful to Nigel Clarke and his team for an excellent
report against a difficult background
and in a short timescale. It provides a helpful platform for debate as
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society
moves towards demerger.
However, Clarke inevitably failed to achieve “the Heineken effect” (reaching
out to the width and depth of our profession). I understand that fewer than
150 pharmacists in total attended his road shows. So he heard from the great
and the good (and the vested interests) but not the silent majority.
This will not deliver a professional body that enough grassroots pharmacists
will feel inspired to join, and pay for, voluntarily. A high (>70%) membership
by pharmacists is crucial. If that is not achieved how will the professional
body be financially viable or remotely credible as the voice of pharmacy.
The Society’s Council has no plans to simply go ahead and implement Clarke’s
60-plus recommendations. This is clearly recognised in the five-minute guide, “Plans
for new professional body pick up pace” (PDF 260K), sent out with
last week’s
PJ. So the next step is to inform and then listen to the members.
Pharmacists need to debate, to argue, to discuss, to conclude and, ultimately,
to vote on what Clarke recommends and the process has already begun. The Society
has all the tools for the job: branches, regions, special interest and sector
groups and, carefully enshrined within the 2004 Charter, the democratic process
that must be followed for changes on the scale proposed.
The use of technology,
such as the Society’s website, and pharmacist discussion groups, such
as Private-Rx, mean that not one of the Society’s 48,000 members should
be excluded from playing a part in the debate or, finally, from voting on the
proposals.
As I noted in the Council
discussion, (PJ, 3 May 2008, p543) one
of the notable absences in Clarke’s report is any consideration of alternative
options to a chartered body. This, too, must be discussed and agreed with the
members.
But time is short: the creation of two shadow bodies (a regulator and a professional
body) must be achieved by the end of 2009 if we are to meet the planned timetable
of formal demerger of the Society in January 2010. So we must move forward
with the process of transition, in parallel with consultation.
This is a professional matter and is, therefore, for pharmacists alone and,
logically, must be led by the democratically elected pharmacist members of
Council, working with other stakeholder bodies from within the profession.
It will be crucial, while simultaneously consulting the broad membership,
to include bodies like the UK Clinical Pharmacy Association, the College
of Pharmacy
Practice and the Institute of Pharmacy Management International, which have
committed themselves to merge with the new professional body. Council must
also ensure the Society’s national boards play their key role here.
To give the process credibility and to ensure transparency it will be crucial
to appoint a neutral chair. Nigel Clarke, and no criticism is intended here,
cannot perform this role since, otherwise, the transition process will be
seen simply to rubber stamp the
Clarke report.
There is an interesting parallel here with the Carter report. Lord Carter’s
helpful recommendations have been the basis for further debate within and
without the profession.
But it is Ken Jarrold, not Lord Carter, whom the Government
chose to chair the current Pharmacy Regulation and Leadership Oversight
Group, which is overseeing the establishment of the new regulator for
pharmacy,
the
General Pharmaceutical Council.
The Society is working hard to get closer to its members. This is a golden
opportunity to help achieve this crucial objective.
Graham Phillips
Member of Council and Chairman, Public Affairs Planning Group
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
From Professor H. McNulty
The Institute of Pharmacy Management (IPM) has some suggestions to help the transitional committee take the Clarke report recommendations forward. The following need to be considered by or under the jurisdiction of the transitional committee in addition to the development of a prospectus:
IPM believes that given the above, the time lines proposed for establishing the new body pose significant risk to members, to the regulator, to the professional body and to the public. It can take many months to recruit to senior positions and the plans, structure, governance, titles, duties and function of the posts have to be developed and agreed.
IPM Council is very pleased to see that the Clarke report believes “that the case that management advice is a legitimate area for consideration by the professional body is a compelling one”. IPM suggested a broader role than the management advice.
IPM Council proposes a modification of recommendation 26 for consideration by the transitional committee: “The professional body should work closely with IPM (which might become an integral part of the organisation) to ensure that its members have better access to management qualifications, appropriate standards, education, training, CPD support and advice.”
IPM Council recognises there are organisations interested in or providing management support and would be pleased to hear from groups that share a similar vision. IPM looks forward to working with the transitional committee, The Royal Pharmaceutical Society and other organisations to help meet the challenges and demanding targets for both business planning and the management proposal.
Howard McNulty
General Secretary
Institute of Pharmacy Management InternationalFrom Mr D. A. Morgan, FRPharmS
We are disappointed, therefore, with the tone and content of the subsequent letter from Council member Douglas Simpson (ibid p688) querying the motivation of the college and the Waterloo Group organisations, which are committed to the same aims. We would like to assure Mr Simpson that he has no reason to feel threatened by the involvement of the college in developing the new professional body or by the college being one of the partners in the Waterloo Group. Our position, and that of the Waterloo Group, is accurately described in the letter from Mr Holmes. We totally refute Mr Simpson’s spurious suggestion that either the College or the Waterloo Group has plans to sequester the Society’s assets; indeed this has never been discussed.
The college was established by the Society in order to promote a high standard of pharmacy practice and it has never made a secret of its long-standing aspiration for a royal college for the profession. We have been open and transparent about our views towards establishing a new professional body. We have participated in the normal democratic processes both individually and in participation with the Waterloo Group. The public statements following the two meetings of the Waterloo Group were both supportive of the Society and the second one supported the recommendations in the Clarke Report. The college has declared from day one that it wishes to be incorporated within the new body and will continue to support the Society to achieve this.
Having seen the Society’s response to the Clarke Report, we recognise that there are a few matters which will require further debate, and we look forward to a constructive dialogue on these points. The college will continue strongly to support the Clarke Report’s recommendation, which promotes a broadly defined membership for the new body. In doing so, we recognise that it is of the utmost importance to make the new body relevant to generalist members as well as specialist members.
Finally, we fully support the Society’s view that there is a continuing need for dialogue and partnership working with other pharmacy groups and organisations and we should all seek to co-operate together to implement the new professional body. A win-win partnership is required and we would urge Mr Simpson to embrace this concept and join constructively in the deliberations of the Transitional Committee.
David Morgan
Chairman, College of Pharmacy Practice
From Mr G. Hall, MRPharmS, and others
There was no involvement of the Department of Health in convening the Waterloo Group. Following informal discussions at the United Kingdom Clinical Pharmacy Association 25th Anniversary Conference in the autumn of 2006, it was agreed that representatives of UKCPA, the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists and the College of Pharmacy Practice should meet with a view to working more closely together. This was given added impetus by the publication of the White Paper “Trust Assurance and Safety” in February 2007, and it was agreed that there would be merit in involving other organisations in the meeting.
The deciding factor was the announcement that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society was to hold a meeting to discuss the White Paper, but that attendance was to be limited to its own regional and branch representatives. The Society subsequently reversed that decision and invited representatives of other organisations, but by that time arrangements for our meeting were at an advanced stage.
The meeting was held on 15 March 2007 at a neutral venue at Waterloo, London, hence the name of the agreement and the group. The Society was not invited, but the President, Vice-President and Secretary and Registrar were told that it was happening.
At the meeting, there was a remarkable degree of unanimity, and we were excited and energised by this. We wanted to publicise our agreement and, as a few of us had been invited to the King’s Fund seminar on 20 March, it was agreed that the college’s chief executive should seek an opportunity to make an announcement at that event. The Department of Health was contacted on Friday 16 March as a result of which the college chief executive received an invitation on Monday 19 March to make a short presentation at the seminar the following day.
The Waterloo Agreement, which was published by the King’s Fund in its report of the seminar, was supportive of the Society’s role as the basis for a new professional body, but with the involvement of other bodies as well, and that is still our position today. At our second meeting in March 2008, the Society’s Chief Executive was invited to speak, along with Nigel Clarke and Peter Noyce on behalf of the Pharmacy Regulation and Leadership Oversight Group. A report of the meeting was forwarded to the Society as soon as it was ready, it was publicised in the PJ and on the websites of the College and other organisations.
There is no question, therefore, of the Waterloo Group being secretive or subversive; in fact we have communicated openly with the Society, Department of Health and others about the meetings we hold, and our aspirations to engage positively with the development of a professional body which will support all of our profession wherever it may be practised.
There certainly is no suggestion that it should sequester the Society’s assets. In the absence of any evidence it is, therefore, at best mischievous that such a suggestion has been made.
Graeme Hall
Professional Secretary United Kingdom Clinical Pharmacy Association
Richard Cattell
President
Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists
Ian Simpson
Chief Executive
College of Pharmacy Practice
On behalf of the Waterloo Group
From Mr R. Dickinson, FRPharmS
It would be reasonable to distil from them a scenario that has considerable merit, ie, a pharmacist-only professional body, operating without a charter and providing services of real value to community pharmacists as well as to those practising elsewhere.
The views at the branch representatives meeting are a significant indication of how the majority of active members probably feel about whether pharmacists should have their own professional body. The arguments for inclusion of other professionals have been well rehearsed. I believe that the least convincing reason for such a decision would be that they would help to make the new body financially viable. Be that as it may, surely the next step is to find out whether or not the majority of individual pharmacists agree with the BRM resolution.
As to the maintenance of a link with the Privy Council through a charter, this was of first importance when the Royal Pharmaceutical Society was acting on behalf of the government in the regulation of the profession. These duties have been forcibly removed from the Society, a decision I deplored. Those pharmacists who welcomed this change emphasised the Society would now be free from any restraints when representing the best interests of pharmacists and that it could now be completely independent.
I know from experience that on matters to do with pharmacy the Privy Council works closely with the Department of Health. We have seen how the DoH has tried to influence the development of the new professional body. If it so wishes, the profession now has the opportunity to remove the influence of government from the internal workings of our professional body by severing the link with the Privy Council.
I am not surprised that the minority interest groups within pharmacy have expressed their views through the Waterloo group but the driving force behind the creation of the new body must be the membership of the Society as a whole. It is certainly not time for the Society to take a back seat.
A voluntary membership professional body for pharmacists will only succeed if its planned activities and services support the aspirations of the majority of pharmacists. As in the past, minority groups of pharmacists would decide whether they could function best within such a body or independently. I would hope that the new body would make every effort to create an environment conducive to the work of such minorities.
Raymond Dickinson
Former Deputy Secretary, Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Farnham, Surrey
From Mr G. S. Phillips, MRPharmS
I am grateful to Michael Schofield (PJ, 14 June 2008, p714) for putting forward the other side of the argument around chartered status and the role of lay members in pharmacists’ new professional body. This is the right time to be having this debate and creating such a debate was my prime objective in writing my article the week before (PJ, 7 June 2008, p687).
Professor Schofield’s arguments in favour of lay input and chartered status are founded upon three assertions:
1. That this will confer greater influence upon the professional body
2. That governance and public confidence will benefit
3. That lay members bring additional skills
I use the word “assertion” purposefully since Professor Schofield, despite the age of evidence in which we live, cites no facts to support his case.
Greater influence In my article I listed a series of examples of the Privy Council’s unwarranted interference in matters unrelated to regulation. This interference occurred despite the presence of 10 lay members on the current Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Council. This is hardly compelling evidence of their great influence.
But the nail in the coffin for Professor Schofield’s first assertion is the fact that the Government rejected the arguments in favour of an integrated body and consequently decided to remove the regulatory role from the Society. This was despite considerable and very public opposition from a number of lay Council members. If this is evidence of the greater influence that lay members confer then I suggest we would be doing just fine without it.
Governance Professor Schofield provides more assertions but still gives no facts. He quotes the Nolan principles as if they and, by implication, proper governance are the sole preserve of the lay members. I reject these unjustified assertions and resent the implications, which I regard as a slur upon the professionalism of pharmacists.
In fact, my experience on the Council was quite the reverse of the picture Professor Schofield paints. Some lay members laid claim to “openness” and “transparency” but some behaviour I witnessed at close quarters appeared far from open, transparent or patient-centred. Professor Schofield himself admits that governance has been difficult at Lambeth despite the lay members’ presence.
More generally, I have had the opportunity to be involved in considerable work seeking the views of patients and the public, not only through the Society but also via local primary care organisations and my own pharmacies. Not once has anyone shown a shred of interest or even mentioned governance at Lambeth or the need for lay members.
What does interest the public (as the Government’s own research as background to the recent White Paper on pharmacy reinforces) is obtaining much more from pharmacists in the crucial areas of public health and medicines management. I want to see our new body deliver on the vision of pharmacists as patient-centred, medicines-focused clinicians.
We will need to count on strong patients’ voices, a small and dedicated expert staff and a small, visionary and dedicated Council of pharmacists to deliver this. What we do not need is a continuance of Lambeth’s lay-led regulatory obsession (let the new regulator deal with that) to hamper our progress.
Skills There can be no suggestion that all the necessary skills reside with pharmacists. Pharmacists’ new professional body must work in close collaboration with “internal” stakeholders (non-pharmacist pharmacy academics, pharmaceutical scientists and, of course, technicians) as well as “external” stakeholders (patients and the public, with all that entails) to have a chance of delivering on the vision.
The networks to which Professor Schofield alludes would undoubtedly be strengthened by effective public and patient participation. The skills to which he refers (marketing, financial management etc) will be provided by appointing the right expert staff. Thereafter any additional skills required could be provided by co-option or external consultancy.
The profession will decide. On this, if nothing else, Professor Schofield and I are in complete agreement. Hence I am seeking an immediate and public commitment from the Society to consult its members on this issue. The Society has been guilty of paternalism in the past, which has only served to distance it from the members. Now is the chance to promote a vision for our future and thereby to re-engage members’ hearts and minds. Time is short. I hope the Council will seize the opportunity.
Graham Phillips
St Albans, Hertfordshire
From Mr D. Solomon, MRPharmS
What has decided me against becoming a member of a chartered professional body is the doctrinaire way, without regard to evidence base or established best practice, that the Privy Council has interfered in the administration of our honourable profession. I am grateful to Graham Phillips (PJ, 21 June 2008, p747), among others, in helping me reach this conclusion.
I do not believe that it would be either in pharmacists’ or indeed patients’ best interests for us to pledge our allegiance to a body that would subject itself to such interference.
The argument about lay members is separate: those who have written in this journal would get my vote; some others would not. It seems to me that they, too, would have more freedom without a charter, and those with genuine interest in our profession might still be persuaded to serve.
David Solomon
Manchester
From Mr M. Williams, MRPharmS
Whatever their own personal views on the inclusion of lay members on the governing council of pharmacists’ professional body, both correspondents refer to the need for the profession to decide whether or not to pursue charter status and, as such, contribute to the start of an ongoing debate. However I am most concerned about Professor Schofield’s unsubstantiated assertion that “chartered status is valuable”.
Although one can accept the need for chartered status with lay Privy Council appointees in a regulatory body, Professor Schofield fails to persuade adequately the need for a charter for a professional body. It was the bitter arguments over the charter that led to actions in the High Court, before the Government eventually agreed a new charter with the profession in 2004. This was agreed on the basis of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society continuing as an integrated body combining professional and regulatory functions.
Less than two years later, with the wax on the Royal Seal barely set, the Government reneged on its agreement, effectively ending the Society as we know it, destabilising the organisation and the profession itself. One must ask what value Professor Schofield sees in creating an organisation that could allow a similar situation to occur in future.
One thing is for sure, and is alluded to by both correspondents: it is for the members (note, not registrants, affiliates or others) to decide which direction the profession takes. Under the current charter, pharmacists have the right to vote to accept changes to the organisation which could see its assets redistributed and its composition altered. If there is one value in having chartered status, it must surely be that.
Mike Williams
Solihull, West Midland
From Professor H. McNulty, FRPharmS
Mr Phillips suggests members need to consider all other options for a non-chartered body — but the nature of this body, its aims, objectives, powers are vague. It will take many months to establish and agree to these starting from a blank sheet of paper; time is not on our side.
Why members should take any more notice of another consultation is unclear, with the risk that at the end, we could have a few hundred responses. We could then be in a situation where the General Pharmaceutical Council is about to be established and there is no body for it to work with, Royal Pharmaceutical Society expertise, networks and services could be lost and any alternative body could take years to become established in a vacuum.
A crucial factor to consider is that for any such new body to receive RPS resources, the current Council must be convinced of the merits of and member support for the new body. Another factor is the credibility of the body with the new regulator. How will this be achieved by dropping the charter? Losing a royal society title that is worth millions in marketing terms and one that many other professions would die for, is a high risk strategy.
Lay membership and technician involvement were covered by the Clarke inquiry, which has already made recommendations based on the responses received. It is unclear why the responding members’ views on these subjects are now unacceptable. The Council was elected by only 16 per cent of members, but that doesn’t mean the results are not valid or another election is needed. The arguments made against lay membership on the Council are based on personal experience of a mainly regulatory role for it, with 10 newly appointed lay members.
The Privy Council has much less interest and involvement in non-regulatory professional bodies. As examples, the royal medical colleges and the Royal Society of Chemistry have charters and no lay membership. However, as the public view can often help focus the profession’s perspective and aid the public interest, perhaps we could pioneer. There were few concerns with a much smaller lay input (three members) in the past.
The technician debate is confused by the unqualified use of the word “membership”. It is entirely possible to allow them and other non-pharmacists a different level of membership or affiliation, with lower fees and restricted voting rights and Council input, but with access to membership benefits and networks. It is against pharmacists’ interests to propose that technicians, who will also be regulated by the General Pharmaceutical Council, should establish their own body and work separately with the regulator. If there is to be clear leadership of the profession and practice of pharmacy we need to work together.
An example of how to do this is the Institute of Physics, which has six membership categories of which honorary fellows, fellows and members are known as corporate members while the associate members, students and affiliates are non-corporate members. Its council has up to 25 members of whom 16 (64 per cent) are elected by corporate members. Six are elected from branches, divisions and groups, and its council has the power to co-opt up to three further members. Thus, physicists are always in the majority and there is also no defined lay specification.
We must proceed at full speed to consider the results of the Clarke consultation and get the new professional body under way to have any chance of success. Members will get their chance to vote and comment. Based on past experience of voting and earlier consultations, actually getting them to do this will be a major challenge.
Howard McNulty
Glasgow
From Mr M. A. Walker, MRPharmS
Is this what most pharmacists want? Do pharmacists agree to the assets being diverted for these uses? What happened to the professional representation of pharmacists, as the raison d’être of our new professional body? Let us not forget that it is this need that most grassroots pharmacists see as the over-riding function of the new professional body. It is sadly missing from the current Society. Mr Clarke, Lambeth staff, the Waterloo Group, the good and the great, etc, appear to be unaware that a two-thirds majority of members is required for any major change to the Society. Why will they not listen to the grass roots of the Society, concerning the formation of the new body?
I trust that members realise that Council controls the Society’s considerable assets and, if not, here is a warning. I do not expect that the current membership will hand over tens of millions of pounds of assets to a rebranded Society led by the Waterloo Group. If pharmacists allow that group to determine our professional future then the Society’s assets will be lost to the vast majority of pharmacists forever. Most pharmacists will be left without a representative body, a disastrous result.
What will happen when the vast majority of members realise that the assets are threatened? History shows us the fate of the Hawksworth Council, supported by Michael Schofield, when they did not include the phrase “promote the interests of pharmacists in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy” in a draft Charter. I hope we avoid a similar debacle.
I fully appreciate why members have ignored the recent Council election — only 16 per cent voted. Why bother to vote? Does anyone in Lambeth really expect that many members will renew a voluntary membership if that body does not have the professional representation of pharmacists as the main function? When working as a change consultant, I knew that the person paying the bill was the customer, also that time is required for successful change. The voluntary membership fees of pharmacists and revenue from the assets will be the main income of the new body, so members are the ultimate customers. I trust that the President is aware of who his real customers are and will not be deafened by Lambeth voices.
Pharmacists must be given sufficient time to turn the Society into a representative body with the assets fully intact, and I hope our President will be able convince the Government appointed members of the Council to “butt out” of the Transitional Committee. Speed or rushing to form a new body could lose members and put our considerable assets at risk. Please note that transforming the Society to coincide with the creation of the General Pharmaceutical Council is not critical. However, creating a professional body, which pharmacists choose to join, is the absolute key to success.
Mark Walker
Oxford
From Mr S. J. L. Churton, MRPharmS, and Mr J. Holmes
The current Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society takes collective responsibility for its decisions and the input of the lay members to those decisions is highly valued. The form of incorporation of the new professional body and the composition of its governing body are not yet decided, but are part of the remit of the Transitional Committee. That committee, under the independent chairmanship of Nigel Clarke, has been set up to advise the Society’s Council and other bodies committed to the process on the membership, business plan and governance of the new professional body.
The Society itself will shortly be running a survey via The Pharmaceutical Journal on key issues relating to membership of the new professional body. The prospectus, which results from the advice of the Transitional Committee towards the end of this year, will then be given the widest possible circulation. The associated consultation will aim to ensure that the final design of the professional body has comprehensive support.
Steve Churton
President
Jeremy Holmes
Chief Executive & Registrar
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
CONSULTING THE MEMBERS
From Mrs D. Drury, MRPharmS
Why do non-pharmacists think they know what is best for us? It is our money and we do have the nous.
We are the scientists in the high street. We want to be at the cutting edge of new services, advances in pharmacy and new technology. The foundation of this will be an ever changing MPharm degree together with modifications in preregistration training. Postgraduate education and specialisation in the sectors will be achieved by our members. Of course, we need clever executives and administrators to bring this to fruition, but the profession must only be led by pharmacists.
Perhaps we have to be exclusive for the benefit of both the members and the public that we serve.
Dorothy Drury
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Led by Pharmacists?
From Mr F. G. McCaul, MRPharmS
In the same issue (PJ, 28 June 2008, p780), Denise Brooks, a technician working for a dispensing doctors’ practice, without the supervision of a pharmacist, lays claim to parity in patient safety and patient care in comparison with the standard pharmacist-led service.
To suggest that we are all part of the some mythical pharmacy family and that there are no patient safety issues here is absurd. We need look no further for a clear cut example of a conflict of interests which would make it absolutely impossible for pharmacists’ new professional body to also represent the interests of technicians.
It will be difficult enough to convince pharmacists that they should join anything based at Lambeth. Please let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Fin McCaul
Burscough, Lancashire
From Mr I. G. Simpson, FRPharmS, and others
We fully agree with Nigel Clarke (PJ, 17 May 2008, p583) that it is absolutely vital that the transitional committee is set up as soon as possible, and we were concerned that the consultation proposed by the Society would delay implementation of Clarke’s recommendations.
However, at the Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists and United Kingdom Clinical Pharmacy Association national conference on 10 May, we were pleased to receive an assurance from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s Chief Executive, Jeremy Holmes, that establishment of the transitional committee would run in parallel with the consultation.
In your report (PJ, 26 April 2008, p493), you identified those organisations that wish to be an integral part of the new professional body, and those that wish to work closely with it. We are currently taking steps to identify members who could contribute to the transitional committee, and our intention is that each of the selected members will be supported by a reference group and network. We look for a significant proportionate contribution from the Waterloo Group to the transitional committee.
We are keen to work with the Society to ensure that we produce a prospectus that will encourage all members of the pharmacy profession to join the new professional body, and we urge the Society to appoint the independent chairman and get the transitional committee established so that it can start work immediately. As you say in your editorial (PJ, 17 May 2008, p582), it is a great opportunity for the Society’s Council to send out a new message.
Ian Simpson
Chief Executive, College of Pharmacy Practice
David Wyatt
Chairman, Academy of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Sarah Wilcox
President, Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK
Steve Tomlin
Chairman, CPP Faculty of Neonatal and Paediatric Pharmacy
Stephen Guy
President, College of Mental Health Pharmacists
Richard Cattell
President, Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists
Howard McNulty
General Secretary, Institute of Pharmacy Management
Barry Strickland-Hodge
Chairman, CPP Faculty of Prescribing and Medicines Management
Beryl Bevan
Chairman Designate, Pharmaceutical Advisers Group
Rowena McArtney
Chairman, Neonatal and Paediatric Pharmacy Group
Paul Spark
Secretary, NHS Pharmaceutical Production Committee
Richard Bateman
Chairman, NHS Pharmaceutical Quality Assurance Committee
Clive Moss-Barclay
Chairman, NHS Pharmacy Education and Development Committee
Lynne Morrison
Chairman, NHS Technical Specialists Education and Training Group
Joy Wingfield
Chairman, Pharmacy Law and Ethics Association
Shailen Rao
Chairman, Primary Care Pharmacists Association
David Green
Chairman, Primary and Community Care Pharmacy Network
Ray Fitzpatrick
Chairman, RPSGB Hospital Pharmacists Group
Geoff Saunders Chairman, British Oncology Pharmacy Association Executive Committee, and Chairman, CPP Faculty of Cancer Pharmacy
Michael Parker
Chairman, RPSGB Industrial Pharmacists Group
Andrew Cairns
Chairman, RPSGB Veterinary Pharmacists Group
Catherine Duggan
Chairman, UK Clinical Pharmacy Association
Eilish Smith
Chairman, UK Medicines Information Executive
Ian Maidment
Chairman, UK Psychiatric Pharmacy Group.
Peter Rhodes
Chairman, NHS Pharmaceutical Aseptic Services Group
Paul Maltby
Chairman, UK Radiopharmacy Group
From Mr D. I. Simpson, FRPharmS
For instance, when the Society’s Council met on 21 May before the Society’s annual general meeting, it had no inkling that a letter had been submitted to The Pharmaceutical Journal signed by officers or officials of various pharmacy organisations supporting the Waterloo group (PJ, 24 May, p623). The letter expressed support for the Clarke report on the establishment of a future professional body and suggested how the Clarke report might be taken forward, the very thing that the Council had been discussing that day.
The first that members of Council knew about the letter was when they attended the annual general meeting in the evening and heard the chief executive of the College of Pharmacy Practice tell those present that the letter was about to appear.
The Waterloo group’s actions are, in my opinion, verging on the hostile. If the members of the Society were concerned at one time about the Society’s assets being seized by the General Pharmaceutical Council, they ought now to be concerned about those assets being sequestered by a self-selected group of organisations trying to create a body to their liking.
Among those organisations is the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK, even though the Society’s membership has yet to be consulted on the crucial issue of whether technicians should be granted membership of the Society or not.
I would like to comment briefly on the origins of the Waterloo group. We started to hear about it when the Department of Health’s Carter working party was deliberating on the creation of the General Pharmaceutical Council and professional leadership in pharmacy. The Carter working party, it will be recalled, commissioned a King’s Fund seminar on 20 March 2007, and the “Waterloo agreement” was one of the things presented at the meeting by the chief executive of the College of Pharmacy Practice. The agreement is set out in the King’s Fund report of the meeting.
Since the Waterloo group meeting only took place on 15 March, five days before the seminar, it suggests that there might be some form of departmental blessing for the College of Pharmacy Practice’s actions in convening the group. The Society certainly had no hand in it and members of the Society’s Council, of which I am one, knew nothing about the group before its “agreement” was published (in April 2007).
The King’s Fund seminar, of course, was set up to explore the case for a royal college for pharmacy. Again, the Society had no hand in the organising of the seminar.
The royal college idea was mooted, readers will recall in the White Paper on professional regulation, which called for a body akin to a royal college to be set up to work alongside a new General Pharmaceutical Council.
Where did the idea of a royal college for pharmacy spring from? None other than from the College of Pharmacy Practice, in its evidence to the Foster review that preceded the publication of the White Paper.
The College of Pharmacy Practice was set up by the Society in 1981. Its objects include promoting education and training of pharmacists and establishing standards for vocational training in pharmacy practice. It was run by the Society for its first five years, then, as was the original intention, floated free. Under the circumstances it is distressing to see the college seeking to wrong-foot the body that gave it its very existence.
The college may well play a key part in the new professional body of the future, but it would be better advised to behave in a less subversive manner. And the sooner it does so the better. Because, even if it succeeds in neutralising the Society’s Council, it still has to face the Society’s 47,000 members, most of whom have no connection with the 900-member college, or any of the other bodies in the Waterloo group, for that matter.
The people that will be deciding the future of the Society are, of course, its members. There are certain key issues upon which, under the terms of the Charter, they must be signify their approval. These include new categories of membership, a change in the composition of the Council, an alteration to the Charter, any change in the name of the Society and dissolution of the Society.
In my view, the new Society will be successful long-term only if it attracts a significant majority of registered pharmacists into voluntary membership. This means that the proposals must enthuse those in what is, and is always likely to be, the major sector — community pharmacy.
The sooner that all concerned engage with and seek to represent the views of the rank and file on the best strategy to attract that majority the better.
Douglas Simpson
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
From Dr P. J. Brown, FRPharmS
The key challenge is not just to establish a new body, but to establish a body which the vast majority of pharmacists will be willing to support through annual fees, in addition to the fees charged by the General Pharmaceutical Council.
Given the huge apathy shown by the membership at the most recent Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council elections — only 16 per cent of pharmacists voted — is it even worth trying to replace the professional component of the Society? The Government may want this but do pharmacists even care?
Looking ahead, I believe that we will see a fragmented approach to the issue of how to provide a professional backbone to pharmacy. Undoubtedly, there are strong pockets of professional interest, such as clinical pharmacy, which will attract sufficient financial support to ensure viability. Whether we will then have coalescence of these under an overarching body is anybody’s guess.
Let us face the fact that it is not necessary for all pharmacists to join a single body. Consider the medical profession. The Royal College of General Practitioners does not include all GPs. Indeed, the medical profession is represented by many royal colleges and other organisations, each of which is viable in its own right. So why should pharmacy, once rid of the Society, be any different?
I do believe that, as time passes, it will become increasingly obvious that pharmacists need a professional trade union like the British Medical Association. The powers that be in the Society oppose this on the grounds that members should not be in conflict with employers. This is a nonsense argument when one considers that conflict is part of everyday professional life, as the BMA has shown over many decades.
The Government has put the onus on pharmacists to find a replacement body for the Society because it is putting the Society out of business as a consequence of its decision to establish the GPhC. But this is no reason for pharmacists as a whole to be concerned. Time is on the side of the majority of pharmacists, who can rely on existing representative bodies to see them through the changeover to the GPhC.
I predict that pharmacists will get to 1 January 2010 without a replacement body for the Society that has the level of support required to make it financially viable. Unsurprisingly, this will not be a disaster: life will carry on as before under the GPhC ,which will be advised by various specialist pharmacy groups, educational, clinical, financial, legal, etc, to everyone’s satisfaction.
So let us stop wasting time and effort searching for a successor to the Society. Instead let us concentrate our efforts in supporting the organisations which effectively represent the component groups of the profession and work out how they will interact with the GPhC and see what the future brings.
Philip J. Brown
Weybridge, Surrey
From Mr A. J. Rogers, FRPharmS
There are currently around 6,000 registered technicians, and they pay an annual retention fee of £130. Since they get no other membership benefits from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, we can assume that a similar fee will be payable to the new registration body. Around 1,500 suitably qualified technicians pay an annual fee of £30 to belong to the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK, although they may not yet all have paid the £46 to register with the Society and the ongoing £130 annual retention fee.
Some technicians have already claimed that the retention fees are too high, and argued that fees should be linked to income. Does APTUK really believe they will be willing to pay a fee, likely to be set much higher than their £30, to join a professional leadership body dominated by pharmacists? It is assumed that the technician register will expand to around 16,000 by 2010, and it is this figure that is being used to support the viability argument. These suitably qualified technicians seem in no hurry to pay to register with the Society, and presumably see no value in paying £30 to APTUK either. How can Mr Acres be sure that people whom he does not even represent will flock to join the new body?
However, if Mr Acres is right, and the vast majority of technicians do agree to pay a substantial subscription to join, I wonder how many pharmacists “with strong views” will be deterred from joining the body that should be focusing primarily on offering them professional support. What impact would this have on the balance sheet, and, in the words of Mr Acres: “What impact will this have on patients?”
The Waterloo Group generally favours technician membership. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society wisely decided that members, ie, pharmacists, would have the final say on the matter.
I share Howard McNulty’s frustration (PJ, 28 June 2008, p778) at the slow progress in shaping the new body, and I share his desire to get members to comment and to vote. However, this mess was precipitated by a hasty Department of Health decision, and made worse by its over-optimistic timetable for transition.
Members are rightly concerned about their future, and if we “proceed at full speed” because “lay membership and technician involvement were covered by the Clarke inquiry”, we shall further alienate pharmacists, and destroy any chance of a viable new professional body. I trust that Professor McNulty and his Transitional Committee colleagues will not be tempted to renege on the earlier promise of a meaningful consultation with members.
May I remind colleagues that it is now easy to get their opinions noticed, by posting a brief comment on www.pjonline.com.
Alan Rogers
Epsom, Surrey
From Mr P. J. Tidy, MRPharmS
It seems that the Royal Pharmaceutical Society has had two basic functions — protect the public from pharmacists, and protect pharmacists from the public (or their elected representatives). It has performed the former admirably and failed in the latter. The job of protecting the public will now fall to the General Pharmaceutical Council, which we shall be compelled to join and pay for.
Joining a body to represent pharmacists will be optional and market-driven — we will not pay to join a body that does not stand up for us.
The letters and articles in the same issue of PJ indicate the depth of the problem — community pharmacies cannot get the drugs they need, the draft NHS constitution fails to mention pharmacy in any meaningful context, and 100-hour pharmacies threaten members’ livelihoods. While some in the higher reaches of the Society look down their noses at the British Medical Association, there is no doubt the BMA is at least listened to at the highest level — unlike the Society, which appears to have no opinion or comment on the aforementioned issues.
The current Society should have the moral courage to agree to a winding up process, return the assets to its members before the Government grabs them to fund its own plans, and let members choose which bodies they will support, rather than attempt some over-arching body of dubious legitimacy and less effectiveness.
Philip Tidy
Lancaster
New Professional Body
Constructive ideas
TransCom is an Open Process
From Miss S. J. Durant, RegPharmTech
Technicians did not ask to be registered or take on more responsibility. This was all part of making patient care the best it can be. Making all providers of pharmacy services qualified to the level for their role gives customers reassurance that the person they are speaking to is qualified to a minimum level and responsible for their own actions.
We respect pharmacists’ clinical knowledge and, in taking on other responsibilities, support pharmacists’ role by freeing their time from the mundane and allowing them to give more time and better clinical support to patients and other clinicians. All the roles technicians have taken are ones within their capacity, for which they have had further training.
Some technicians feel a need for more clinical knowledge but, at present, no clinical courses are available. Pharmacists should not be scared of technicians’ lust for responsibility.
Some pharmacists say that the Government has ignored responses to remote supervision consultation, including those from technicians. If technicians are to be registered, then they must make sure they work within their boundaries and knowledge. To work without a pharmacist would put technicians in an uncomfortable position, with lack of clinical support in the workplace and the possibility of being pressured by large multiples to work in a role that is not theirs. Such a scenario could jeopardise their career if they overstep the boundaries of that role. I am sure that many feel removing the pharmacist from the work place would be unacceptable.
Sam Durant
Brighton
From Mr G. L. Stafford, MRPharmS
Having thought long and hard about it, I have come to the conclusion that this is a wrong assumption. It is not what the Royal Pharmaceutical Society will do for me that will influence that decision.
To sway me I want to hear what the Society will stand for.What agendas will it pursue? How will it make me feel to be a member? Will I be proud of the principles that it stands for?
To this end, here are some of the items I would like on the manifesto:
- To support and work with the PDA Union in pressing for improved working
conditions for pharmacists and technicians.
- To support the contention that only pharmacists
should own pharmacies, opposing the European Commission view and supporting
other European and worldwide pharmacist
professional bodies that uphold the same contention.
- To oppose the responsible
pharmacist regulations and press for owners, directors and superintendents
to be responsible for their pharmacies.
- To value and support
traditional forms of practice of which many pharmacists
are rightly proud.
Graeme StaffordMorecambe, Lancashire
From Mr N. Clarke
Rather, it would be a matter for the Department of Justice via a petition to the Queen, with the latter process being much slower than the former. However, both must begin with a decision by members of the Society to approve such a change, no doubt put to them following a vote of Council.
That is exactly what was said in the Clarke inquiry report. This is a decision for members of the professional body. The official processes are something of a formality, as a rule.
I would like to confirm that there is no question that such a decision could be taken without approval of the membership of the new professional body.
Nigel Clarke
Chairman, Transitional Committee
From Dr B. Curwain, MRPharmS
The reason is that the Society’s Charter prevents it from distributing its assets to the membership in the event of it ceasing to exist. The assets would have to go to another body with broadly similar aims. It does not take much imagination to see that given our current status as a regulator, as well as a professional body, the demise of the Society could precipitate the transfer of its assets to the General Pharmaceutical Council.
This is just one reason why, along with my Council colleagues, I am determined to offer members the option of joining a world-class professional body that will develop and promote pharmacy in the interests both of pharmacists and the public.
Brian Curwain
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
From Mr P. J. Tidy, MRPharmS
As a member of Council, would he care to explain why despite the fees we do not have a world-class body already? Because clearly if we did then we would not need to be reinventing the wheel but just to have the Society as it is, minus the regulatory functions.
Some may contend we already have a world-class body that represents its members properly but given all the efforts being made to come up with something new, not many people seem to agree.
Philip Tidy
Lancaster
The Society
From Mrs H. J. Baker, MRPharmS
We are glad to have received assurances from the Chief Executive that Transcom and the Council will be acquainted with their obligations under the GED. In our experience, however, not only do most groups within the profession know little about the duty, most practising pharmacists know little about their GED obligations as employees, or contractors to the NHS.
There are two critical reasons why everyone working to create the new body must ensure they operate in accordance with the duty. First, if the body wants mass membership, it must match its structures and policies to the nature of the pharmacy workforce. The Society has considerable information at its disposal about registration, work patterns and salaries, and it must make proper use of this knowledge.
Second, if the GED is not properly observed, any group in the profession that is unhappy about the outcome of deliberations will have strong grounds for seeking judicial review of the decisions reached. This option is specified in the guidance documents linked to implementation.
Compliance with GED obligations is not a luxury or something that can be added on later. Requirements in England include:
Furthermore, it must be possible to show how all these duties have been met.
We find it strange that other professional bodies (including many not required to comply with the GED) see this as an obvious mainstream issue, while it seems to have been almost ignored within pharmacy. If the new body is to be truly focused on the needs of its members, things will need to change.
Hazel Baker
President, National Association of Women Pharmacists
From Mr J. Holmes
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is committed to the creation of a new member-focused professional body that is inclusive of all the interests within the pharmacy family. There is broad acceptance both inside and outside the Society that this new body should not simply be the Society rebranded.
That said, the Society has the intellectual and financial assets to provide the essential foundations for the new professional body. This belief is supported both by the Government and many in the wider pharmacy profession.
In his submission to the All-Party Pharmacy Group inquiry into the future of pharmacy in April 2007, Lord Hunt stated that it was important that the royal college should be a new entity, but that it should build on the foundation and excellent work of the Society. In the May 2007 report on professional regulation and leadership in pharmacy, Lord Carter commented that his working party would very much hope that the Society would be a “central plank in the formation of a royal college”.
More recently the Clarke Inquiry report of April 2008 stated: “Overall, the thrust of the evidence we received is that the Society should indeed, as Lord Carter had hoped, be an integral and major part of the new professional body.” The report went on to say that the Society is the only organisation around which the profession can coalesce and meet the timetable of change.
In their letter to The Pharmaceutical Journal (24 May, p623), members of the Waterloo Group wrote: “We are keen to work with the Society to ensure that [the Transitional Committee] produce a prospectus that will encourage all members of the pharmacy profession to join the new professional body.”
I and the Society's Council remain committed to the development of an influential, supportive and inclusive professional body. We will work closely with the Transitional Committee to be chaired (or led if you prefer) by Nigel Clarke to make sure that happens.
Jeremy Holmes
Chief Executive and Registrar
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Transcom update
Just to advise that there are now a number of blogs on the Transcom website, and views are welcomed.
I have posted one on Pharmacy Management support from the new body, there are others on Postnominals - the Regulator wont give you them it seems, Advanced practice, undergraduate training, and lots more.
Time is running out. Transcom has only two meetings left and must conclude in October - so if you have a view see what others think and post it.
From Mr A. Tanna, FRPharmS
With regards to the membership survey seeking the view of the pharmacist regarding membership categories for the new professional leadership body, I think the questionnaire did not ask the right questions or give the right options for views, opinions and comments, so I would like to ask some questions and comments for the Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Transitional Committee to consider.
One of the main aims of the Charter is to support pharmacists, so why are pharmacists being asked whether pharmaceutical scientists, non-pharmacist academics working in schools of pharmacy, pharmacy technicians, preregistration trainees and other individuals with an interest in pharmacy should be invited to join and stand for election to the governing Council of the new body?
Technicians already have their own body (the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK).The new body should be for pharmacists only, whether they are practising, non-practising or retired.
Ashwin Tanna
London
NIGEL CLARKE, chairman of the Transitional Committee, responds
There has been a consultation process involving the pharmacy profession and the development of a professional body for the whole of the past year, to which many pharmacists and their representative bodies have responded. That debate has included discussion of membership and, importantly, the various services that would be delivered to members.
TransCom is now working on putting together more detailed proposals, to be circulated to the profession as a prospectus. This is an open process. There are already many pharmacists involved, either directly through the working groups, or by contributing comments and papers through the website.
Members of TransCom are attending meetings of branches and there has been much discussion at conferences throughout this time. Joining the new body will not be mandatory, so it is important for all who want to see a strong organisation fully supporting the profession and its members, that they are involved in the thinking that informs its creation.
A strong body is not important only for pharmacy, it is also vital for the public and patients who depend on the products and services the profession supply. The profession has science at its heart, so it is reasonable for there to be a debate about how to ensure that the new body reflects this, hence the questions in the survey.
For the avoidance of doubt, those who are not members of a professional body, whether medical or otherwise, cannot use its post-nominal letters.
Branding
Transcom seems to have missed the main point of this transformation. The Society is moving from mainly regulatory body with compulsory membership to a a body which needs to market and sell itself and its benefits to its customers. The NPB must sell services to pharmacists not just pontificate over what pharmacy in general should do.
On launch day a service focussed organisation would brand itself to appeal to its customers (pharmacists is case this has been forgotten). I don't expect Nigel Clarke or Lambeth or clinical/hospital pharmacists to be experts is setting up a new customer focussed organisation but please listen to the few commercially savy voices on TransCom or get advice. Please stop telling your potential customers that pharmacy organisations are so important that the NPB will be named for them. Let's be customer focussed and call the the new body the Society of Pharmacists (Royal if permitted). Pharmacy organisations may be affliated under the rules but that is a secondary issue once the brand has been sorted out. Please announce the BRAND and end my dread of TransCom's forthcoming prospectus.
Mark Walker - Oxford
From Mr S. P. Acres, RegPharmTech
The proposal by the Transitional Committee to grant affiliated status to pharmacy technician bodies has been received in all quarters as a sensible and pragmatic solution. The debate around technician membership has been intense, passionate and, sometimes, uncomfortable. The proposed solution is, without doubt, a win-win.
However, recent headlines in The Pharmaceutical Journal would have you believe otherwise. “Technicians denied membership” and “Associated membership would leave technicians fragmented” are headlines that appear to show the decision as negative.
These headlines are not, in my view, constructive. Moreover, they have the potential to undermine the strong support that the proposal has received. Closer reading of the text of the letter from Catherine Davies should
lead any reader to the conclusion that the headline is out of context to the strong positive theme of the letter.
The use of such headlines will do nothing to enhance partnership working, a position that is vital to the success of relationships with affiliated
bodies.
In the words of Winston Churchill: “The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees opportunities in every difficulty”. A positive approach from the PJ on technician status would be most welcome.
Steve Acres
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
From Mr M. A. Walker, MRPharmS
I hope that a new professional body, with pharmacists at the centre, will emerge from the transformed Royal Pharmaceutical Society. Then I, along with most current members and many former members, will be proud to become a member of it.
The President of the Society, Steve Churton, should speak about pharmacists and not use the vague terms of “the profession” or “pharmacy” when he speaks of members of the new body. If Mr Churton were to use the word “pharmacist” in his speeches, it may trigger thoughts about who must be in charge of the pharmacists’ new body. He needs to gain widespread support from grassroots pharmacists by using the words and doing the deeds to show that pharmacists will be at the core of the new body. His British Pharmaceutical Conference speech sadly omitted this simple, underlying message. In doing this, he missed an opportunity to initiate this prerequisite for successful transformation management. I trust that not mentioning pharmacists was an accidental oversight.
Martin Astbury and his membership working group listened carefully to pharmacists over who should be in and out of the new body. Their work has widespread support and I trust that the Transitional Committee’s prospectus will follow their recommendations.
Apparently, however, it was decided that the new body should be for pharmacy, not pharmacists. This represents a significant mistake by Transcom, because it gives the perception to ordinary pharmacists that they are not important.Let us remember that the lobby for a big pharmacy family (Waterloo Group etc) wanted to make technicians members. After a year of superfluous debate, the vote was lost. I am sure pharmacists will vote that the new body, with our considerable current assets, must be a body and voice for pharmacists. We do not need another voice for the myriad of pharmacy organisations and companies because this would be at the expense of a vocal body for pharmacists.
A 2010 deadline for the new body is artificial, as the Society will not disappear without a new Charter. In contrast, Transcom will only have one opportunity to offer its prospectus to pharmacists. I hope that Transcom listens carefully to pharmacists, rather than pharmacy organisations. Next, it will need to produce a document acceptable to the people who will vote on it — grassroots pharmacists. Recently, the PJ editor repeated a former editorial comment that “Council ignores the expressed wishes of the membership at their peril”. Without doubt, Transcom’s prospectus needs to focus on pharmacists and their wishes.
Between 2002 and 2003, the American Pharmaceutical Association changed its name to the American Pharmacists Association and made a statement about its focus on members. I believe that we should replace “pharmaceutical” with “pharmacists” in the name Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. This would show ordinary members that pharmacists are of utmost importance to the new body. Only then will pharmacists be attracted to join it.
Mark WalkerOxford
An inclusive and pharmacist-led professional body
From Mr S. J. Churton, MRPharmS
I note with interest the comments made by Mark Walker in his letter (PJ, 27 September 2008, p358) concerning my speech at the British Pharmaceutical Conference in Manchester.
Mr Walker suggests that I should speak about pharmacists and not use the vague terms of “the profession” or “pharmacy” when I speak of members of the new professional body.
He may be interested to learn that I referred specifically and purposefully to pharmacists on no less than 15 occasions throughout the course of my conference address (the text of which will be included in the forthcoming BPC supplement to The Pharmaceutical Journal).
As a member of the Transitional Committee independently chaired by Nigel Clarke and tasked with producing a prospectus for our new body, may I say that there is overwhelming support for the view of Mr Walker and, I suspect, many other pharmacists, that pharmacists should form the core of the emerging body. In fact, I am unaware of anyone expressing a contrary view.
However, we should recognise the extremely valuable contribution made by pharmaceutical scientists, dispensing technicians, academics and many others, to the science and practice of pharmacy. The pharmacy profession is absolutely indebted to many individuals who are not pharmacists and it is clear to me that there is considerable value to be gained from a strong, responsive and forward-looking body, which draws its strength from being pharmacist-led, enriched by the inclusion of those who can legitimately claim to be members of the wider pharmacy family.
The concepts of “pharmacist-led” and “inclusiveness” are, in my view, totally compatible. I would suggest that both concepts need to be fully embraced to secure a bright future for our profession as it enters an exciting new chapter in its proud history. Our profession and our patients will be best served by an inclusive and pharmacist-led professional body for pharmacy.
Steve Churton
President
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
How the profession will be best served
From Mr M. A. Walker, MRPharmS
I am delighted to learn that the President of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, Steve Churton, spoke of pharmacists 15 times during his British Pharmaceutical Conference speech and he wants a new professional body led by pharmacists.
However, Mr Churton concludes his letter (PJ, 4 October 2008, p388) by saying: “Our profession will be best served by an inclusive and professional body for pharmacy.” I fail to understand why Mr Churton seems to re-open the technician debate after members have clearly stated their wishes.
Overwhelmingly, pharmacists do not want technicians to be members of the new body. Martin Astbury and his membership working group recognised this fact and recommended that the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK should only be allowed to affiliate to the new body. This view has widespread support, including from APTUK. Inclusiveness is the wrong focus because it is not a core issue.
The Society is moving from being a mainly regulatory body, with compulsory membership, to a body that must market and sell itself and membership benefits to its customers. The current brand, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, has failed in the view of most grassroots pharmacists, who do not even bother to participate in votes about the Society.
The new body must sell the benefits of membership to pharmacists. On launch day, a service-focused organisation needs to brand itself in order to appeal to its customers. I really do expect Mr Churton to be aware of the issues around setting up a new customer focused organisation. I urge him to stop implying to potential customers that pharmacy organisations are so important that the new body will be named for them.
Let us be customer focused and call the new brand the Pharmacists’ Society (Royal if permitted). The re-branded Society may include pharmacy bodies or be inclusive for all pharmacists but it cannot be both. For me, it is simple: my profession will be best served by a professional leadership body for pharmacists.
Brian Curwain incorrectly accuses me of saying that the new body should be for pharmacists and no one else (PJ, 4 October 2008, p388). Many pharmacists (44 per cent) who voted wish to exclude pharmaceutical scientists (PJ, 13 September 2008, p295).
Personally, I would welcome pharmaceutical scientists and academics, with conditions. Entry requirements for such scientists must be as high as for a new pharmacist (masters degree, preregistration year and examination). Also, any group or faculty must be fully self-financing and any post nominals awarded must be different from ours.
Working as a management consultant, I would have advised that adding extra groups should not be attempted on launch day. Rather, a post-launch addition to a transforming organisation is far easier. We must focus on the core membership from day one.
Further developments should be considered only after we know if pharmaceutical scientists are prepared to pay for their faculty.
To answer Dr Curwain’s question “What are we scared of?” I fear the reaction of pharmacists when they hear of this “inclusive pharmacy brand”, promoted by Mr Churton, Dr Curwain, Lambeth staff and others. I fear that most pharmacists will not buy membership — an absolute disaster.
Evidence of the members’ feelings will be seen in the lack of interest in the Transitional Committee’s prospectus and the rejection of a new Charter
The first step to a successful transformation of the Society is branding it as “The Royal Pharmacists’ Society”. Then an organisation should be created around the unique selling proposition of “the professional leadership body for pharmacists”.
Mark Walker
Oxford
Read carefully before passing comment
From Mr S. J. Churton, MRPharmS
Following Mark Walker’s recent suggestion that I should “speak about pharmacists” in the context of the new professional body (PJ, 27 September 2008, p358) (readers of The Pharmaceutical Journal’s coverage of my British Pharmaceutical Conference address will observe that I do so), may I suggest that he should read my letter again (PJ, 4 October 2008, p388) in which I called for “an inclusive and pharmacist-led professional body for pharmacy”.
He appears to have conveniently omitted the words “pharmacist-led” when, unhelpfully, misquoting me in his subsequent letter (PJ, 11 October 2008, p419).
Curiously, he also comments, without substance, that I wish to reopen the amicably concluded (my words) “technician debate”. Again, this is inaccurate and untrue.
He goes on to suggest that I have implied that “pharmacy organisations are so important that the new body will be named for them”. I have never expressed this view or, indeed, offered any suggestion that the new body should be renamed at all.
Personally I believe it is always courteous to listen carefully to what others have to say, to read what they write and to observe what they do, before passing comment. I find it helps greatly.
Someone once said “never let the facts get in the way of a good story”. Some, it would appear, agree.
Steve Churton
President
Royal Pharmaceutical Society
From Mr G. D. Johnson, MRPharmS
Many letters have been written about the new professional body and a consensus appears to be emerging despite a great deal of controversy. I am past my “sell by date” for future career development but I did take time to contribute to the membership survey. What did occur to me was what would I do if I were 50 years younger and at the start of my career.
If one wishes to progress to a GP, one needs to join the Royal College of General Practitioners. To progress to a surgeon or physician, one needs to join the appropriate college. The questions that need to be addressed and answered for young pharmacists and which, at present, are not even debated are: “Why should I, as a young pharmacist at the start of my working life when money is tight, join the professional body or a college of pharmacy? How will it advance my career prospects? Registration and professional competence lie within the remit of the General Pharmaceutical Council and provided I comply and keep my employers happy I have a career.”
These questions need to be addressed otherwise pharmacy will finish up with the situation apparent in the current Royal Pharmaceutical Society branch membership, where new entrants to the profession do not appear to want to get involved.
Gerry JohnsonCheadle, Cheshire
Retention fees should be a percentage of income
From Mrs C. Schweizer, MRPharmS
I still do not understand why the retention fee is a fixed amount rather than a percentage of income. Maybe pharmacists on lower incomes could pay a slightly lower percentage than the rest of the members. That way the funding of the lower fee could be spread fairly among the members with higher incomes. Pharmacists with higher incomes should pay more.
Cornelia Schweizer Bangor, GwyneddLet us act confidently and inclusively
From Dr B. P. Curwain, MRPharmS
I am writing this in a personal capacity but readers should be aware that I am a Royal Pharmaceutical Society Council member, chairman of the Society’s Science Committee and a member of the English Pharmacy Board.
Mark Walker (PJ, 27 September 2008, p358) goes on at some length about how the new professional body should be for pharmacists and for no one else. However, he fails to make any logical argument for this position apart from that pharmacists will not join the new body if it includes other groups involved in various ways in pharmacy and medicines. This is, of course, simply an opinion, sincerely held. I would like to offer a different view and I, too, am a pharmacist.
Large numbers of scientists working in industry, as academics and researchers in schools of pharmacy and elsewhere, contribute to the practice and science of pharmacy by developing the products that we use every day to improve health and fight disease. We have a number of Nobel laureates in this category. Would we seek to exclude such distinguished individuals from our body? Might there not be some advantages in including them? What, in short, are we scared of?
The scientific community to which I refer is made up of registered pharmacists, those with pharmacy qualifications who are not currently registered and scientists with no formal pharmacy qualifications. Why should we differentiate between these groups? There are many pharmaceutical science courses available in our universities. If a scientist can demonstrate involvement in a branch of pharmaceutical science, what is gained by excluding them?
Is it really true that pharmacists will only join a body that is exclusive to us, a cosy club that excludes all others? Surely, we are more visionary and more confident than that view implies.
The numbers involved mean that pharmacists will, inevitably, be the main part and the main influencers of the new body should they choose to join. The body will, however, be a business, dependent on its members’ voluntary subscriptions to survive and to be strong enough to act as an effective voice and support for pharmacy.
Many academics teaching in schools of pharmacy are not pharmacists but to say they have no place in a body which will be expected to advise the General Pharmaceutical Council on educational standards for pharmacists and technicians is clearly absurd.
A change of mindset is required. At present, the title MRPharmS defines us as a pharmacist. In future, it seems likely that our registration with the GPhC, not membership of the Society, will allow us to use the restricted title “pharmacist”. This simple fact allows us to be more adventurous in our aspirations for the new body.
Of course, the membership will be consulted on this when the Transitional Committee prospectus is published. If my view is truly a minority one, then it will not prevail. I hope and believe that we will find the courage to act confidently and inclusively, and create something that we can all be truly proud of.
Brian Curwain
Member of Council
Royal Pharmaceutical Society