This site is intended for Healthcare Professionals only

Why won’t the RPS come clean about its membership?

Views

Why won’t the RPS come clean about its membership?

By P3pharmacy editor Arthur Walsh

A reputation for secrecy has built up around the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in the years since it split from the regulator. From property sales involving dubious judgment to board members getting the heave-ho in controversial circumstances, there have often been more questions about how the RPS operates than available answers. 

To its credit, the Society has itself acknowledged its issues around transparency and has made commitments to do better. In 2022, it commissioned an independent review into its approach to member engagement following a series of controversial decisions taken by the RPS executive that many members felt they should have been consulted on. 

The review produced a number of recommendations, including the provision of regular, country-specific updates to members and a new protocol for explaining decisions taken by the board and assembly. The Society clearly takes these points seriously; in an assembly update this March, RPS president Claire Anderson reaffirmed that it is “committed to engaging extensively with our members”.

However, many still feel the RPS should be more open about how many members there actually are. Its latest annual report acknowledges a “slight” drop in members year-on-year, from 38,193 to 37,474, as well as a four per cent fall in membership revenue. But how many of these are paying members who have actively chosen to join the organisation?

A better yardstick can probably be found in the Society’s report on its recent national board elections, which reveals in the fine print that ballots were sent to 17,405 members in England, 928 fewer than in the previous year – a not insignificant decline over the space of a single year, and something the organisation is apparently not keen to advertise. I should add that it is not alone in this, as both the National Pharmacy Association and the rebranded Independent Pharmacies Association (formerly AIMp) are fond of giving what can euphemistically be described as ‘ballpark’ membership figures when pressed.

There is a chance that a new board could challenge this culture. The election results came out just before P3pharmacy went to press, and several of the successful candidates are on the record as saying membership figures should be published.

Responding to a questionnaire issued by the Pharmacists’ Defence Association, former president and new board member for England Steve Churton defended this position eloquently, saying he had “never understood the reticence to divulge” member numbers and that it is “clear to all that membership has plummeted from the level retained immediately after its establishment and continues to do so... it would be better to be open about it and focus on the reasons for this, rather than fuelling unhelpful speculation”. 

That seems exactly right to me. Evasiveness over such a fundamental point serves to foment suspicion and distract from the valuable work it is currently engaged in, such as a forward-thinking partnership with sector charity Pharmacist Support that was announced recently. Rather than help the professional body’s efforts to modernise its offer to registrants, it hinders them.

Copy Link copy link button

Views

Share:

Change privacy settings