The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) has said it should represent both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians to ‘achieve a more unified approach to pharmacy leadership’.
It argued the move would be important in the face of a rapidly changing sector, which it said will see an increase in clinical responsibilities and technology ‘revolutionising’ the delivery of pharmaceutical care. It also predicted an ‘unrecognisable’ healthcare landscape ‘within a generation’.
Under the proposals, each profession would be represented ‘within professional faculties that capitalise on the strengths of each discipline whilst retaining distinct professional voices’, it stressed.
A single leadership body would also lead to ‘inter-professional cohesion’ and would ‘ultimately achieve parity in opportunity, as well as improving pharmacy practice and patient care’, it suggested.
Paul Bennett, the chief executive of the RPS, said many members ‘ work with pharmacy technicians every day and know just how essential they are to their role and to patient care’.
He added: ‘We feel the same at RPS and it makes perfect sense to evolve into an organisation where both professions can advance their scope of practice, working in alignment as part of the wider multi-professional team.’
Calls for changes to upskilling and regulation
As part of its vision for the profession, the RPS also called for changes to regulation and revalidation, including for the GPhC to formally delegate responsibility for post-registration training and credentialing assessments to the RPS.
It said that this would enable pharmacy professionals to ‘confidently deploy their professional judgment without the perceived fear of potential fitness to practise proceedings’.
Instead, the regulator said it was planning to ‘take quick action to protect patients when we need to, while at the same time promoting a culture of learning and reflection that helps pharmacy professionals to remain practising when this is appropriate.’
In its proposals, the RPS also said that pharmacists and pharmacy technicians should have to revalidate against their highest level of credentialled practice, rather than against the minimum baseline standards for the profession.
Mr Bennett said: ‘The ‘one size fits all’ approach to revalidation needs to change.
‘We want to see you progress in your career and believe financial reward from employers and organisations must be explicitly linked to your level of credentialled practice, so pharmacists and pharmacy technicians are rewarded accordingly.’
He said that the changes would ‘give professionals a clearly mapped career path’.
‘More than medicines experts’
Setting out its vision for post-registration training, the RPS said that pharmacy’s future role must be ‘centred around the unique contribution pharmacy professionals make to patient care’, which it argued was ‘their expertise in medicines’.
However, it also argued that ‘pharmacists and pharmacy technicians at all levels of practice will need to be more than medicines experts’, as they will also need to be ‘confident and competent leaders, educators, and researchers’.
‘This will break down the historic tendency of specialising into a singular professional silo of clinical practice, leadership, education, or research,’ it added.
The RPS acknowledged that the proposals are a ‘a significant evolution of the current RPS’ that would require a consultation with its members.
However, it added: ‘We believe the vision described in this statement delivers our current Charter objectives of advancing knowledge and education in pharmacy, promoting and protecting the health of the public, and developing the science and practice of pharmacy.’
Have your say
Please add your comment in the box below. You can include links, but HTML is not permitted. Please note that comments are not moderated before publication and the views expressed are those of the user and do not reflect the views of The Pharmacist. Remember that submission of comments is governed by our Terms and Conditions. You can also read our full guidelines on article comments here – but please be aware that you are legally liable for any libellous or offensive comments that you make. If you have a complaint about a comment or are concerned that a comment breaches our terms and conditions, please use the ‘Report this comment’ function to alert our web team.