Following on from the debate on the following thread:
http://www.pjonline.com/forum/secret_assembly_session_suggests_non_scientists_as_members
Please use this thread to discuss what a good SRPharmS post nominal will look like for you....
Hello guest, welcome to PJ online
gateway to the world of pharmacy and medicines
A declaration should suffice
"The post nominal should only be after passing the pre-reg year and no one else should be awarded it, otherwise some are qualifiyng and some are subscribing to a post nominal." - Dorothy Drury
This is an important point but we have experience here. Before the split between regulatory and leadership arm, we used to make a legally binding declaration when we are renewing our membership. Every year the membership is to be renewed then the PS will have to make some declaration that they are still working in science (or in the relevant field that has been defined by the relevant appointment board). That way we are not awarding post nominals by subscription alone.
An idea?
Take a look at this
http://www.rsc.org/Membership/join/CharteredStatus/cchem.asp
One of Dorothy's previous posts touched upon how the APS have floated a desire for chartered status. I think this is an interesting point so I had a look at the RSC website.
Should we be thinking about the option of having the RPS "acredit" PS in a similar way? That way, PS have to do CPD and have to have a qualification that is of the required standard with the right balance of PS modules. They then get the post nominal CPharmSci. Then it can be like the suggestion Dorothy has for pre-regs associates, where PSs according to the RPS definition get an SRPharmS UNTIL they achieve CPharmSci status. We can give them a time limit in which to convert it. That way, no chance for them to go off and be store managers and PS have their own prestigious post nominal that cannot be confused with pharmacists. Most of all, get the PSs we need to advance our profession.
Some observations, views and questions...
"....what sort of professional body is this?" - Dorothy Drury (link)
It is a professional body determined to take its rightful place in a newly configured NHS where we are recognised as the medicines experts. We have probably underperformed in the past because of structural issues which has now been lifted. The SRPharmS issue is an opportunity for us to demonstrate that we have learnt lessons from the past and are able to move forward in the interest of our patients. The question is: can we make the right decision? It is only when we can demonstrate that we have condemned the bunker mentality of the past to the past that we can be empowered to move forward. Otherwise, the decision will only continue to be made for us.
To Rachel Airley
I think you are right. The real 'fight' we have in our hands is how we can attract and retain top pharmaceutical scientists whilst promoting aspiration amongst up and coming pharmaceutical scientists. We are very keen to retain their expertise in our ranks. Borrowing your words, it will give us a stable platform to build on. APS understands this and are looking to make their offering attractive. I think if we play this right, we should have all the aces. We can offer our pharmaceutical scientists colleagues a better umbrella where they can innovate and advance research whilst supporting the pharmacy agenda. Exciting times I would say.
My Question to Rachel
Since you work in academia and my interest is in community pharmacy, how feasible will it be to have post graduate course (MSc or even DPharm) which will fulfil all the academic rigours but undertaken jointly by a pharmaceutical scientist and a community pharmacist. Roles and responsibility clearly defined and both emerging with some post graduate qualification with a series of publications to boot. Naturally this will feed into the Society's research agenda, promote joint working and integrate the pharmaceutical scientist into the profession where they belong.
Many thanks
Its already happening
Fact is all the SOPs also offer a degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences. What started out as a "transfer" degree that was offered to applicants that didnt make the grades for the MPharm is now becoming a strong choice in its own right. In most universities it is now an MSci that offers RSC recognition or accreditation and a year in industry. I think this degree will become more popular with those wanting a career in science as it is very multidisciplinary and applied, and with the cuts, applied research is more likely to be funded. I think that this new wave of pharmacists coming through will be more used to interprofessional learning with these students and therefore more likely to want to share a professional platform with them. I therefore predict that the notion of pharmacists wanting to remain isolated from PSs will run its natural course. Another option is to offer a "conversion course" in Pharm Sci to those that have studied pure science degrees. This has been done to a certain extent with the MSc in Industrial Pharmacy and the MSc in Clinical Research and other similar masters degrees, but to make it accessible to all perhaps the RPS could look into an accredited diploma programme in PS run in the same vein as the diploma in clinical pharmacy, veterinary pharmacy etc. This could be carried out by correspondance with working case studies (that might take the form of a publication) and could fund aspects of their associate membership. There are so many ideas if people will just open their minds to it.