The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7223 p693-694
9 November 2002

Society summary

Fellowship of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society — recognition and designation

Ron Wing, former chairman of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's panel of fellows, describes what fellowship of the Society means and hints at a possible future role for fellows

Designation as a fellow of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society is recognition of a highly significant contribution to pharmacy, its Society and the stature of the profession. It undoubtedly gives great pleasure to the few people (about 30 a year) who are so recognised under the criteria for fellowship, which were developed 50 years ago. To most recipients, fellowship comes as an unexpected event and the surprise of such recognition by one's peers adds greatly to the pleasurable response it produces.

Until 1953, fellowship was a "higher" qualification based on a degree or the Society's higher diploma of "Pharmaceutical Chemist". Consequently, until almost the turn of the century, most fellows had been designated by such early qualifications. For many years there was a tendency to consider the then new fellowship as a back door method of gaining higher qualification. This was a great misrepresentation, particularly as from that time all pharmacists were required to be graduates and under the former criteria all pharmacists would automatically become fellows.

Nevertheless, it is vital for a vibrant and innovative professional society to have a method whereby it can give recognition to its members (irrespective of their early academic achievement) who make unique contributions, offer leadership and convey distinction upon the profession and the Society. Such contribution may take some time to emerge and to accumulate over the years of a career and is unlikely to be normally demonstrated by new graduates.

Later this month, the panel of fellows will meet for the second time this year and will assess the nominations received for fellowship. For me this is quite a poignant time, because it will be the first time for 15 years I have not been party to that meeting. It has been a privilege and honour to have served the profession in this way and I know all my colleagues with whom I have shared the role have felt the same. However, it is a real challenge of trust and impartiality to ensure an objective assessment of the sometimes incomplete, subjective and even nebulous information provided. There are always times when the evidence is plentiful, even overwhelming and these are the easy decisions. The difficult ones are where the statute requirement of "distinction" is difficult to recognise and where often worthy qualities highly desirable in all pharmacists do not meet the outstanding and unique criteria which add up to a "distinction", and it is always disappointing to refuse honourable and worthy nominations.

"Did the panel always get it right?" is a fair question to ask and the answer is "probably not". However, over about 15 years and nearly 1,000 applications there were a few borderline issues which the panel gave a great deal of time to and where, ultimately, the panel may have been over-generous and an occasional one where the decision was not correct. These difficult decisions were normally deferred to collect more information, or the rejection would suggest that the panel would be prepared to receive a new proposal and further information after a period of not less than two years.

Panel's work affected by societal changes

There are recent changes in society that have made the prospects for nomination and the panel's work more difficult. First, people today are more mobile and move around much more frequently. Therefore continuity of knowledge of people is more fragmented and seems to make it more difficult for nominees to recognise and to give proper consideration to the issue. I consider that there is a significant number of members who warrant nomination but do not receive it. Secondly, since nominations have to be made in confidence, it is difficult within the provisions of the Data Protection Act to collect all the information needed and to assemble a comprehensive document. This theoretically should not apply to truly national figures but, even there, real difficulties have been encountered. With these changes in modern society and the real diversity of the profession in practice, the panel of fellows has recommended to the Society's Council that consideration should be given to changing the rules, but not the standards, to ensure there is proper access for all truly eligible candidates. While this has been agreed in principle it will still require some further work to ensure the new systems are valid and reliable. As a result of this, it is hoped that fellowship will move away from both "oversight" and the "retirement afterthought" so that it will truly represent, as it should, contemporary endeavour. This will then reflect upon the working community of pharmacists currently providing leadership, innovation and exceptional contribution to all aspects of this modern profession based on skill and ability in the science, practice and delivery of modern health care based on pharmacy.

The criteria set up 50 years ago have proved to be a sound framework during a period of highly significant change in practice whereby the accent has moved away from solely being the integrity of medicines to the more important aspect of securing patient benefits from the vast and more complex range of medicines available. This growing aspect of pharmaceutical care and medicines management has been recognised by the panel principally under the category of "practice" although, in view of the greater significance of this parameter and to ensure that everyone recognises that the core responsibility of the profession is the patient, it is considered now that the word "care" should be distinctively added to the criteria to ensure universal understanding and recognition.

From time to time the panel re-examines the guidelines set up by previous panels to ensure consistency and that the Bye-laws are applied in a valid manner in the contemporary situation and advises the Society accordingly. Consequently, while remaining faithful to the Charter and the Bye-laws, the panel endeavours to ensure that the assessment for fellowship remains valid and relevant today. With this background there are two important changes the panel has recommended and which have been accepted by the Council.

The first is that, since pharmacists are now registering later than they did 50 years ago and as modern technologies have increased the tempo and rate of change, particularly in comparison with other similar professions, the "20 year" rule before nomination appears to be overly restrictive and prevents recognition of important contemporary initiatives. Consequently the proposal is to reduce the 20 years to 12 years (PJ, 17 August, p233).

Secondly, since the Society wishes to ensure that local as well as national distinction is recognised within a situation of (i) greater mobility of members of the profession, (ii) possibly much less continuous professional relationships between members and (iii) the rigorous protection of personal data under the Data Protection Regulations (which creates barriers to valid confidential nominations today that are quite different from 50 years ago), members should be able, perhaps with a nominal fee, to submit a personal application for consideration after 20 years' membership of the Society. In this case there would be stringent rules and the same demanding criteria would apply.

It is to be hoped that, when this new situation is initiated, fellowship will become properly accessible to all members who meet the relevant criteria. Although these issues all affect the development of a valid modern fellowship body for the profession and the Society based on proven professional achievement and distinction, another question for pharmacists arises: what should or could such a collective contribute to the Society?

Respect

Naturally many fellows continue to contribute to the profession extensively on an individual basis, and the respect they hold gives weight to their contribution. How-ever, there could be scope for fellows to meet from time to time as a body to discuss current issues and make their contributions on, for example, the professional role of the Society, and the role of the profession within the National Health Service, industry and academia.

Fellows might also explore concepts and ideas and comment on future trends and horizons which may be less practical for the Society formally to review.

Such a body would need to prepare its own remit for submission to the Society so that it could enhance and enrich the Society's processes and deliberations. Although today there seems to be some uncertainty, even fear, over the changes the Society is going through, it is really for its senior professionals to stimulate, encourage and reassure by developing visions for the future and demanding confidence and true aspiration from the profession.

Such a prospect must come from the fellows themselves, but certainly as I have viewed the role of pharmacy and pharmacists in the great health care debate and development in Britain in recent years, I am convinced there is a much bigger and more vital contribution that can be made by pharmacy. Modern health care is based on and dependent upon the proper use of modern and continually improving medicines. That crucible of today's and tomorrow's health care is best understood and realistically applied through the profession of pharmacy. Perhaps fellows should be addressing the future of that role and ensuring that pharmacy claims its rightful place.