Restructuring the Society for the future
In an ideal world, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society would have reconfigured both sides of its activities at the same time. But the speed with which the Government has expected the health care professions to put their regulatory houses in order has meant that the Society — unique in that it is much more than a pure regulator — has not yet addressed one important area: what structure(s) should be put in place to ensure the Council has the best support on professional issues and the Society's members have confidence that their interests are central to decision-making?
Possibly, if the reconfiguration of the professional structures had occurred
at the same time as the regulatory overhaul, certain groups among the
membership might not have been so concerned that the Society was losing
its unique identity and turning into a regulator alone.
Now, however, the time has come to consider the professional structures
and in this week’s issue there is a discussion document (after
p420, PDF (150K))
outlining the Society’s thinking on professional leadership
and development and putting forward some preliminary ideas of what the
structure(s) might be.
Three models are offered for comment, although the document “Professional
leadership and development: what is it, and how should the Society do
it?” emphasises that there will be many others and invites members
to put their own suggestions forward.
The second model comprising a Senate sitting just below the Council is,
at first glance, more appealing than the other two. It looks much simpler
and it indicates that the pharmacists who serve on the Council would
also serve on the Senate. There tend to be improved lines of communication
if structures are simple and that, at least, should be an important consideration
in whatever model is adopted. With the other two models the lines of
communication do not appear to be so straightforward, although they have
the benefit of ensuring formal input from the branch network, as well
as Scotland and Wales.
Another important consideration will be cost. If servicing the new structure
turns out to be more expensive than the current set-up and members do
not see results at the end of the process, they may feel resentful. However,
if the new structures are seen to be delivering what the membership wants,
any extra cost might be tolerated.
These are the easy issues with which to grapple; the document is packed
with more complicated matters that members will want to address before
a final structure is agreed by Council. Let us hope that the final structure,
which will inevitably be a compromise, has the confidence of the membership.
Back to Top
|
