Anon. A pharmacist.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) has proposed significant changes to its constitution and governance, aiming to transform into a Royal College and restructure its operations. These changes are presented as necessary for adapting to the evolving pharmacy landscape.

But I have been disappointed by the toxic nature of the debate from the so-called leaders of our profession.

Inclusive pharmacy practice (IPP) is a joint initiative with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the Association of Pharmacy Technicians UK and other national partner organisations. One of the principles is ‘We will strive towards pharmacy professionals being an exemplar among UK health professionals for equality, diversity, inclusion, fairness and belonging’. The behaviours I have seen exhibited in the public sphere do not reflect this and are an embarrassment to our profession.

There is no need to act in a condescending manner to those who do not automatically agree or who do not support the move. A variety of opinions is the very hallmark of a civilised society.

That I have had to write this anonymously reflects how stifled many feel

I do not feel that this a debate, and what I have seen does not foster an environment where you can ask questions or seek clarity. It seems that if you question any aspect of the plans, you are quickly told you are wrong and holding the profession back.

I think pharmacists deserve better and that I have had to write this anonymously reflects how stifled many feel. I know I am not alone.

Transparency

The RPS governance structure has long been criticised for being opaque and the proposed changes do not adequately address this issue. Members have expressed concerns about not being sufficiently informed or involved in the review process, which undermines the democratic principles that should guide such significant organisational changes. Most concerning is that the majority of the profession will not have a say in this decision. It is also notable that Pharmacist Support and the PDA have raised concerns.

While the RPS claims that the change will enhance member benefits, there is a risk that the organisation may prioritise its new status and external recognition over the direct support and development of its members. This will continue the disconnect between the leadership body and the pharmacists it represents, ultimately affecting the quality of professional support and resources available to members.

Most concerning is that the majority of the profession will not have a say in this decision

At the moment, aside from providing an electronic copy of the MEP it is hard to write a list of the benefits to me of being a member of the RPS. This also needs to be considered in the context of a rise in inflation and a lack of wage uplift.

Finances

The financial implications of the proposed changes are another area of concern. The restructuring involves creating a wholly owned subsidiary for publishing activities. This is expected to generate surplus funds for the Royal College. The focus on generating profits could compromise the integrity and mission of the professional leadership body, potentially leading to decisions driven by financial considerations rather than the best interests of the pharmacy profession. This has been an area that the RPS has previously been criticised, with many referring to it as a publishing business with a professional body attached.

Uncertain benefits

The RPS argues that the proposed changes will strengthen the organisation's voice in the media and with policymakers. However, the actual benefits of becoming a Royal College are uncertain. There is no guarantee that the new status will lead to increased influence or better outcomes for the pharmacy profession.

I also question why the organisation spent so much member money on rebranding only a few years ago if this was to be trajectory of the organisation. Those at the head of the organisation should be held accountable for this.

The RPS needs to address the real challenges faced by pharmacists, such as workload pressures, burnout, professional development and a challenging environment to provide patient care. At a time where we need a professional body more than ever it has lost its focus.

What next?

It’s likely that the RPS proposals will pass, because the passionate are particularly engaged. Many are senior in the profession (or retired and therefore they have the time and energy to engage with the debate). In comparison, many have already voted 'no' with their feet, and it will be interesting to review the membership numbers this year.

It is crucial for members to critically evaluate the proposals and advocate for a more inclusive, transparent, and member-focused approach to governance and organisational change

While the RPS's proposals for change are ambitious and aim to position the organisation for future success, there are significant concerns that need to be addressed. The lack of transparency, potential loss of focus on members, financial risks, impact on professional identity and uncertain benefits all need to be considered.

It is crucial for members to critically evaluate the proposals and advocate for a more inclusive, transparent, and member-focused approach to governance and organisational change. Especially when they have a say in a decision that impacts the whole profession.

Most importantly there should be space for people who passionately disagree to air their views – this is the very hallmark of an inclusive and civilised profession.