The Guild of Healthcare Pharmacists (GHP) yesterday contacted the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to seek clarity over what its plan to become a Royal College will mean for GHP members and other pharmacists.

In his letter to RPS chief executive Paul Bennett and president Claire Anderson, GHP president Rob Connah posed questions about the potential implications of the proposal which he insisted were “primarily based in the context of hospital pharmacy practice.”

“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,” Connah said.

He asked if pharmacists’ progression within the Agenda for Change (AfC) framework, the UK-wide pay structure under which most NHS staff are paid, will be limited by the “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?” he asked.

Connah also said a move to credentialing would “complicate” pharmacists’ ability to move 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,” he said.

“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.”

Warning the “proposed move to credentialing being interlinked to job progression would appear to complicate this process,” he added: “If pharmacists credential in one specialty at ‘advanced’ level, would this impede movement to another clinical area?”

Connah asked if his members were aware of the financial and time commitments involved in RPS credentialing.

“Within the current NHS ecosystem, there is little time available or dedicated to furthering professional development,” he said. “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.”

Connah also asked Bennett and Anderson how “leaders in the NHS ecosystem will be supported in advocating for additional time for pharmacists to complete portfolios?”

Finally, Connah challenged the pair to reveal what safeguards are in place to ensure a Royal College of Pharmacy is “truly led for, and on behalf of, the pharmacy profession,” given the scrutiny medical royal colleges have faced, particularly around the roles of physician assistants and 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,” he said.

The RPS, who said its members will vote on the proposal early next year, has been contacted for comment.