We have written in respect of the recent proposal to form a Royal College of Pharmacy by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to provide clarity for our membership and other pharmacists within the managed service. We believe that every working pharmacist should be fully informed as to the potential impact on current career progression, time commitment involved, and other considerations that such a move may involve.

Dear Claire and Paul,

The Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists (GHP) recognises the output of the recent Governance and Constitution review within the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS). However, there are many questions which stem from the proposed move to Royal College status which we pose below in the interest of our members. These questions are primarily based in the context of hospital pharmacy practice.

Impact on job progression
Agenda for Change (AfC) is one of the longest running job evaluation schemes in NHS history. There is a suggestion of limiting pharmacist progression within this pay scale based on the proposed need to credential at foundation, advanced, and consultant level. The job profiles for pharmacists do not make reference to RPS credentialing. How would a future Royal College seek to establish the stated aim of attaching progression to credentialing status within AfC?

Movement between roles
Pharmacists currently register with a generalised set of skills in relation to medicines usage, including Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, pharmacology, and clinical consultation skills. This allows for relatively straightforward movement within and between specialties where pharmacists will work on the job to refine and hone expertise in an area. The proposed move to credentialing being interlinked to job progression would appear to complicate this process. If, for example, pharmacists credential in one specialty at “advanced” level, would this impede movement to another clinical area?

Time/financial commitments and credentialing
Within the current NHS ecosystem there is little time available or dedicated to furthering professional development. Guild Council have been staunch advocates of pharmacists having job plans to quantify indicative time spent at work e.g. a breakdown of clinical, management, education/training of others, supporting professional activities time per week. Are members aware of the financial and time commitment involved in RPS credentialing? How will leaders in the NHS ecosystem be supported in advocating for additional time for pharmacists to complete portfolios?

Challenges with Royal Colleges in recent discourse
Medicine has the most established Royal Colleges. They have long advocated and led the medical profession. In recent history Royal Colleges and the leadership of Royal Colleges have come under intense scrutiny and criticism in medicine during the discourse surrounding Physician Assistants/Physician Associates. Junior/resident doctors make the point that Royal Colleges appeared to be primarily enacting the aims of government as opposed to leading the medical profession forward. With these fresh issues in mind, what safeguards would be put in place to ensure that a Royal College of Pharmacy truly led for, and on behalf of, the pharmacy profession?

Although some of these questions are posed with challenges at the forefront we feel it is essential that RPS members are fully informed when voting and that non-members understand the possible future implications this change may have on the pharmacy profession.

Yours sincerely,

Rob Connah (on behalf of GHP Executive Council)

President, Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists