The big society?

In the interests of clarity I need to state that although my entry above is entitled 'the fee-paying owner' that does refer only to the fact that I pay MY OWN RPS fees. The company I co-own, Right Medicine Pharmacy, does not pay our employee pharmacists' RPS fees and I am part of the Board of Directors and Management team that made this decision a year ago. It was primarily a commercial decision and I supported it.

As an individual I whole heartedly support the RPS and indeed as quoted above am running for election to the RPS Scottish Pharmacy Board. I do believe, however, that it is for for individual pharmacists to decide on whether they join the RPS. There are many organisations which pharmacists may choose to join to assist them with their professional work and development (and for many other reasons), and the new RPS operates in this competitive market.

I take my hat off to any contractor/company who decide to pay RPS fees for their employee pharmacists but there must be no perceived moral obligation for us to do so. Ultimately, focusing on providing a great service for members, offering a genuinely unique membership experience and unsurpassed level of quality representation will secure a bright future for the RPS, not just the goodwill of pharmacy owners.
Link back to original article

The RPS is the recognised professional leadership body for Pharmacy as a whole and it's members are individual Pharmacists not Pharmacy Chains and Independents. I don't think it is a bad thing for companies to not fund their employees to join as that way there can be no allegation of the RPS being akin to perceptions of the RPSGB of old that is is run by Pharmacy chains. The RPS primary goal must be to act in the interests of Pharmacists and the development of the Pharmacy Profession. That is clear in the 2012-13 priorities. That said there are and rightly so common goals between aims of contractors and Pharmacists.

Pharmacy needs a strong professional leadership body if it is to develop, be taken seriously as a service provider in the new NHS and have a sustainable future in providing pharmaceutical care as part of the healthcare team. As part of this a working relationship is essential between the various membership organisations (PDA, NPA and the Guild), trade / contractor organisations (CCA, IPF, PSNC and Pharmacy Voice) , regulators and Government / DoH. The RPS is the key body to enable this to occur and bring the others together.

I am standing for the English Board in RPS elections to ensure we promote the profession nationally, develop Pharmacists and networks at local level to engage with commissioners and work with other organisations to develop services and working conditions that allow Pharmacists to deliver.

That way we will have Pharmacists working in the roles we are best skilled to, providing newly commissioned services bringing in much needed revenue for contractors in an appropriate working environment and ultimately providing good pharmaceutical care to patients and meeting NHS challenges.

If you are an RPS member and this is a vision you would sign up to for the profession please consider me for your vote.

Kind Regards

Stephen Riley

All the comments listed are in support of RPS. I see none looking critically at their work.

Most who are positive are also the ones standing for one or other representative board. Is this electioneering on the side to safeguard their Gravy Train??

There is no clear perception of what exactly RPS does. It is all couched in general words. What it needs to do, is to explain how its work benefits the Pharmacist in a busy Community Pharmacy. It needs to fight unnecessary refulations and bureaucracy, and lighten the work load of Pharmacist. If it can demonstrate that, then it will have a future. Otherwise it is in danger of becoming just another "Talking Group".