The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 271 No 7268 p431
27 September 2003

Society summary

Views sought on structuring Society for professional leadership and development

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society is this week publishing a discussion paper seeking views on how both its professional leadership and development responsibilities and its regulatory work can be properly informed and effectively discharged in the future. The paper appears as a four-page centre pull-out (PDF 150K) in this issue of The Journal (after p420).

The paper is the latest stage in the process of making the Society “fit for the future”. Following the Council’s decisions on the future governing Council and fitness-to-practise machinery, the paper sets out some thoughts, and seeks views, on how to develop a structure below the Council to ensure that the Society’s professional leadership and development (PLD) responsibilities, as well as its regulatory work, are properly informed and effectively discharged.

The paper defines PLD in terms of the coming together of several strands — a belief in the value of the profession, a sense of responsibility for passing pharmacy on to the next generation in a healthy state, a recognition that pharmacy is a diverse family whose strength lies in unity and a recognition that the profession’s future cannot be left to chance or the whims of government.

The paper says that PLD is the essential partner to modern regulation. They share functions such as standard setting and continuing professional development and act together to ensure the highest standards of care for patients. In its regulatory role the Society needs to take full account of the professional perspective and in its PLD role it must be aware of regulatory requirements and public expectations.

The paper goes on to discuss what the new structure needs to do and what it should not do. It says that the Society must not become the domain of any self-selected cadres or groups within the profession, that the Society’s different parts must not work in silos effectively cut off from each other and that the Society should not become too introspective or protectionist. The paper adds that whatever structure is agreed must be effective, efficient and affordable.

The range of possible structures that the Society could adopt is “bewilderingly large”, the paper says. But, to prompt further thinking, it goes on to set out three possible models — pointing out that none is perfect and none has yet been assessed against criteria agreed by the Council.

One model, a refinement of the model presented at the British Pharmaceutical Conference in 2002, would create five PLD bodies under the Council. Two “academies” would address issues of education and science and three “senates” would address the clinical and practice elements of the Society’s work in England, Scotland and Wales. The senates and academies would contribute to the Society’s policy cycle and their chairmen would attend Council meetings but without a vote.

Another model is based on the proposal of Council member Clive Jackson at the Council’s discussion on 2 July. It envisages a senate, subordinate to the Council, with most members drawn from the Council, plus others from the chairmen of several “faculties” representing defined sections of the profession. The faculties would contribute to the Society’s policy cycle. In time, all the faculties would come together under one umbrella, analogous to a medical royal college. The Council would retain ultimate authority and accountability for the work of the senate, which would have a significant range of delegated responsibilities including co-ordinating the PLD work of the faculties.

The third illustrative model takes a slightly different approach to the others. It envisages a combination of standing bodies and ad hoc groups. The former would oversee substantive areas, concentrating on agenda setting, co-ordination and review; the latter would be set up for particular purposes, with a “task and finish” brief. The model also includes an element of networking, which it defines as a planned and co-ordinated attempt to bring together appropriate people to focus on particular policy issues in a way that is less rigid and bureaucratic than a committee-dominated structure.

The paper concludes by listing 10 specific issues on which views are sought. It asks for views to be sent to the Society’s Modernisation Programme Project Manager, Christine Gray, by 1 December.