How do you guys feel about this? I'm a little split on it. What I don't like is that when the on hold script is in QV it also shows it is in QV in Pickup. I had a couple techs confuse that with thinking it was already filled and just needed to be verifed when in fact it was in QV because the RX was on hold.
CVS Verifying on Hold Scripts?
- Thread starter 6GodPharm
- Start date
I don't understand why they had to mess with this. Like I can't think of any valid reason to change this process
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 366
- Reaction score
- 85
So that other stores can transfer them without having to call is one good reason.
Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
Maybe a benefit is for CIIs that go on hold? If the data entry has already been verified then maybe you don't have to pull the hard copy that has already been filed when you go to fill it? Then again if the pharmacist who verifies it signs it a different pharmacist may end up dispensing it; so would they have to pull the hard copy and sign it anyways since they are the dispensing pharmacist?
I'm sure this has to do with the internal transfers of on-hold scripts, but I don't see how this is necessary in order to transfer an on-hold; the receiving pharmacy is going to verify it anyways against the image of the hardcopy just as they would with any other internal transfer are they not?
It seems like I put 50+ eScripts on-hold daily that are several weeks early; this could take a ton of extra time and since the pharmacist has to verify it again when it is filled the time is not gained back later. Another stupid update; either the person who came up with this has no idea what it's like to actually work in the pharmacy or they simply don't give a crap.
If this wastes as much time as I think it will I have a feeling that pharmacists won't actually check the scripts that are going on hold and will just look at it when they actually dispense it. I was looking forward to this update because every CVS that I call takes 6 hours to fax the script and are dinguses about it.
I'm sure this has to do with the internal transfers of on-hold scripts, but I don't see how this is necessary in order to transfer an on-hold; the receiving pharmacy is going to verify it anyways against the image of the hardcopy just as they would with any other internal transfer are they not?
It seems like I put 50+ eScripts on-hold daily that are several weeks early; this could take a ton of extra time and since the pharmacist has to verify it again when it is filled the time is not gained back later. Another stupid update; either the person who came up with this has no idea what it's like to actually work in the pharmacy or they simply don't give a crap.
If this wastes as much time as I think it will I have a feeling that pharmacists won't actually check the scripts that are going on hold and will just look at it when they actually dispense it. I was looking forward to this update because every CVS that I call takes 6 hours to fax the script and are dinguses about it.
Last edited:
Do you have to verify linked eScripts that are put on-hold and scheduled?
Can you do an internal transfer of an on-hold if it is linked to another script or do you still have to call the pharmacy to unlink it?
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 7,932
- Reaction score
- 8,095
Just more work that the IT dept creates for themselves to keep their job security. Just like how all of the roads in New England are repaved from spring to fall for no reason. They don't do nonsense that in Europe.
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,455
- Reaction score
- 6,725
If you are in a high volume store it has to potential to become a nightmare once the madness starts this Winter. You'll find yourself clearing like 2 pages of on-hold scripts several times throughout the day. Just another thing on the pile.
Verifying scripts to put on hold is something a lot of other pharmacies are doing so this makes sense.
Make sure the script is going on hold for the right patient. Once a patient thought we lost her script because it was put on hold for wrong patient.
Also helps being able to transfer on hold scripts between stores.
When kmart scripts were acquired the on hold scripts were a pain to deal with because there was no scanned image and it was not verified by a rph. Not always possible to dispense or had to find the hard copy in storage.
Make sure the script is going on hold for the right patient. Once a patient thought we lost her script because it was put on hold for wrong patient.
Also helps being able to transfer on hold scripts between stores.
When kmart scripts were acquired the on hold scripts were a pain to deal with because there was no scanned image and it was not verified by a rph. Not always possible to dispense or had to find the hard copy in storage.
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
- Reaction score
- 1,687
This was done because CVS is either too stupid or too lazy to transfer the image from the on hold rx to the new store when they can put all the onus on the pharmacist at the store where the rx originated. It is just in a long line of *****ic decisions made the what is without a doubt the world's worst IT department.
Yup, everything put on hold goes to QV. It gets even better, I had techs put stuff on hold that was too soon or needed a PA. Patient calls and another tech runs it and they put it on hold again. Went to QV again. It doesn't matter how many times you verify it. Each time you put something on hold it will go to QV. Floaters and slow pharmacist are going to have nightmares. I really think this is a CVS way of getting rid of the weaker pharmacist. This adds easily another 200ish or so scripts that have to be verified a week.
I can just imagine some stores that will have 3-4 pages of on hold stuff left in QV. Patients coming to the counter and the tech thinking it's filled and just needs to be verified. Not knowing it's actually on hold and patient needs to go to drop off. This has problems written all over it.
hi, I need help ! I had interview at CVS last week. The pharmacist asked me few simple questions which i answered correctly , than she explained me about the pay that for first few months you will be blah blah and once you become certified tech. than you your pay will be like XXX. she also told me that i need go to different CVS stores for the training and i will be paid for that as well, nothing i will be doing on free.
But after completion of interview she told me that she will inform me once she make decision as she has few more interviews in raw.
Now,, Its been more than two week and i did not heard anything back from her.. I called her few time but got the same answer that she has not made the decision yet. What does that mean?
I want to know that will she inform that they had recruited other tech? or she will keep ignoring my question?>
Now there is another opening at near-by CVS store, i went there asked them if they have opening they can look at my profile as i have already applied online. That other pharmacist asked me my name and other detail, checked on computer and than he told me that my resume is not available for download.
I can not understand what is happening?
Is it that CVS interviews candidates fro only once?
Can i apply to other CVS location, if i am rejected from one CVS?
Please help me.
I need this job .
But after completion of interview she told me that she will inform me once she make decision as she has few more interviews in raw.
Now,, Its been more than two week and i did not heard anything back from her.. I called her few time but got the same answer that she has not made the decision yet. What does that mean?
I want to know that will she inform that they had recruited other tech? or she will keep ignoring my question?>
Now there is another opening at near-by CVS store, i went there asked them if they have opening they can look at my profile as i have already applied online. That other pharmacist asked me my name and other detail, checked on computer and than he told me that my resume is not available for download.
I can not understand what is happening?
Is it that CVS interviews candidates fro only once?
Can i apply to other CVS location, if i am rejected from one CVS?
Please help me.
I need this job .
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 949
- Reaction score
- 145
Exactly. My store literaly verified like 6-7 pages of ON hold stuff yesterday it's pathetic and my shift ended at 5.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 949
- Reaction score
- 145
What's worse, if it's in waiting bin and another store wants you to back you so they can transfer, they can't do it. You have to put it back on hold, then it goes back in to QV again for the rph to RE-verify (how stupid is that?) and goes back on hold and then the other store can transfer it.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,655
- Reaction score
- 2,814
The way it should work is that re-verification should occur only if someone edits the prescription after the original verification. This is probably too much work for the people working on RxConnect spaghetti code.
There is an excuse for having the original store deal with input verification for on-hold transfers like "xx state board of pharmacy requires the origin pharmacy to place the original Rx on file, like Massachusetts, otherwise the origin pharmacy is acting as an agent of the prescriber, which is outside the scope of pharmacy. This requires the origin pharmacy to complete data verification so that it is documented that a pharmacist sent the transfer and a pharmacist received the transfer."
This is long overdue for CVS because it discourages idiots from just deleting Rx when they fax the original.
Verifying on-hold scripts is a thing at Walmart (and other companies), where verification of on-hold Rx does not "count" for work done that day.
There is an excuse for having the original store deal with input verification for on-hold transfers like "xx state board of pharmacy requires the origin pharmacy to place the original Rx on file, like Massachusetts, otherwise the origin pharmacy is acting as an agent of the prescriber, which is outside the scope of pharmacy. This requires the origin pharmacy to complete data verification so that it is documented that a pharmacist sent the transfer and a pharmacist received the transfer."
This is long overdue for CVS because it discourages idiots from just deleting Rx when they fax the original.
Verifying on-hold scripts is a thing at Walmart (and other companies), where verification of on-hold Rx does not "count" for work done that day.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 350
- Reaction score
- 205
Work for WAG, so not sure what QV is. At WAG, when rx is put on hold, the pharmacist has to data review image then it is stored on profile. It may be temporarily in ENTERED status in work queue, until it's data reviewed. There's the yellow note pad that says "this rx was requested to be stored. Will be stored on profile after data review," or something to that effect. Quite honestly, it probably takes about 10 to 15 seconds to data review most rxs, so in my opinion, not a big deal. Also, when it's time to fill said stored rx, data review is already complete (still undergoes DUR review again). Also, things are data reviewed in order of promised time. Default time is 1.5 hours for erxs. So you just review along. There isn't a separate queue where you have to go verify held rxs.
So you're telling me that the hard copy image is not available when these things are transferred? That is why they have to go through QV? Are you ****ing kidding me?
The whole point of this update was to save time and not have to call other CVS stores, yet this downgrade is more work than just calling. I'd rather spend 10 minutes on hold and argue for 5 minutes with whichever dingus answers the phone over whether it should be a verbal or fax than have to verify an extra 3 pages for no reason.
This update was much needed but I should have known they would find a way to completely screw it up.
It seems like every "upgrade" just ends up making things take longer. Prescriber update... have to have their first name just to look them up. Kind of ****ing difficult when some scripts only have the last name preprinted and the signature looks like a kindergartener playing with crayons.. Takes longer to search prescriber and often you have to call the office to get their stupid name. Oh and you have to scan your credentials just to open a profile for ****s sake. And now this piece of garbage update will add multiple pages to the QV every single day, confuse techs at drop off, and every time I want to check on a prior auth or some other bull****it goes back to QV.
Oh and I hear that all first fill counseling will go to QV now too. HAHA. Now CVS has a reason to fire any pharmacist that they want because nobody is going to do this.
Last edited:
I was looking forward to this, but there is a lot of problems with this. I verified the same script 4 times yesterday because people kept running it and putting it on hold. The script wasn't even being edited, it was just being ran thru.
This is just going to promote lazy patients. Dropping script off at one side of town, and then wanting it another side of town and demanding it to be a waiter. Don't like the WB idea at all
Yeah I was hoping to transfer on-hold scripts just as any other script, but you can never count on CVS to actually implement something that is more efficient. Any time saved by not calling is more than canceled out but the verification.
I don't mind the WB idea, it saves you from calling the other pharmacy. It actually saves time. But they way they are implementing the on-hold update with the QV is actually less efficient than just having to call and not verify.
I hate when people insist on waiting for a transfer. Have to sit on hold for 5 minutes. Either take it on the phone or wait another 20 minutes for them to fax it (if you are lucky and don't have to call them 3 more times because they never send it). Then once you actually have the script it takes 3x longer to type because you have to go through the transfer screens and fill some of that in.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2015
- Messages
- 1,576
- Reaction score
- 1,537
Ahh, more nightmares of redundant work...I was not aware hold Rxs would enter QV...so if a hold Rx is not verified, it can not be transferred say afterhours? Just give us the damn image of the on-hold? This "solutuion" seems like more wheel spinning overall...good old IT dept. not thinking things through. This will without a doubt make QV 10+ pages for 1 pharmacist to sort through post rush hour...fun (sarcasm)
I wonder at stores where it is a mess and nothing on hold is verified for days (7-8 pages in QV) if we can pull those without them being verified? If not then LOL at this idea. These IT pokemon go playing hippies didn't think this thru.
It's annoying because the on hold scripts jump to the top of QV regardless of time
Agreed, they could at least move them to the bottom of QV or highlight in a different color, they get commingled with scripts coming up and its hard to tell what I actually need to verify when I have a page of on Holds to verify in front of the stuff due in 1 hour. It's probably at least an extra 100/day to verify at my store
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2016
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 10
Do these count for any metric (ex. Ready when promised) for verifying these on-hold scripts?? Since you aren't actually filling them??
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2003
- Messages
- 15,455
- Reaction score
- 6,725
The long and short of it is that they are too stupid to realize that they are adding hours of work right now to save minutes of time later on.
Seriously, though. The IT people for CVS have to be the most incompetent bunch of dimwits in the industry. Hell, in any industry. How the hell a gigantic, profitable corporation like CVS can't afford even a below average IT department is laughable. Just pay, like, the 500th best guy at Google or Apple to come over and give the thing a once-over. You don't even need that. Hell, the former janitor at AOL can probably code better than these asshats. It can't be that damned hard to make a piece of software that is actually approaching functional. I've seen it. Go to any other pharmacy on the planet and better software will be found.
I'd love to see the source code of that complete **** Ubuntu Linux build they run everything on. It probably looks as convoluted and needlessly tangled as the plot to the Metal Gear games.
Imagine if we practiced pharmacy as ****tily as the IT people practice coding. People'd be dyin' everywhere.
Seriously, though. The IT people for CVS have to be the most incompetent bunch of dimwits in the industry. Hell, in any industry. How the hell a gigantic, profitable corporation like CVS can't afford even a below average IT department is laughable. Just pay, like, the 500th best guy at Google or Apple to come over and give the thing a once-over. You don't even need that. Hell, the former janitor at AOL can probably code better than these asshats. It can't be that damned hard to make a piece of software that is actually approaching functional. I've seen it. Go to any other pharmacy on the planet and better software will be found.
I'd love to see the source code of that complete **** Ubuntu Linux build they run everything on. It probably looks as convoluted and needlessly tangled as the plot to the Metal Gear games.
Imagine if we practiced pharmacy as ****tily as the IT people practice coding. People'd be dyin' everywhere.
I started having them cash stuff out instead of putting them on hold and waiting for insurance but your still going to run into a ton of PA's and too soons.
Wait what? You're just running them as cash? You're either going to return it to stock because it's not due for a month or end up with a waiter standing in the store while you re-bill it a week later. And it's going to prompt you to call the customer every time you run one as cash which either wastes more time or kills your ANFT plus the mass confusion when the customer is coming to pick up a different drug but one is ran for cash in the waiting bin.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are doing?
If it's a new one sent over, and insurance is expired or we don't have it on i'm starting to have them cash it out. We have one of the highest action note rates as a team (over 80%). We leave a VM or let the patient know come directly to the drop off window to update the insurance. No point in having a patient come to drive thru or come to pickup inside to find out it's not ready.
I think the confusion might be you thinking we are cashing out too soons and PA's? Thats not the case, those go on hold and certain ones we schedule if the system gives that option. Not sure why some too soons you can schedule and others all you can do is delete or put on hold.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Messages
- 949
- Reaction score
- 145
Yes there will be a "H" in front of RX number and there's no copy on the copay column. You simply just go down QV like normal.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2015
- Messages
- 1,576
- Reaction score
- 1,537
How is verifying on hold Rxs even necessary? There's always a damn good reason they are put on hold in the first place. I thought this update was only going to allow Rxs billed, sitting in waiting bin to be transferred without backing out the claim, then show up on the day 14 list.
Seems like overkill to hold a Rx until billable then have the person decide he/she wants to pick it up at a different location on the appropriate day....too much mind changing & running around (patient ultimately decides which pharmacy the Rx is sent to originally).
Seems like overkill to hold a Rx until billable then have the person decide he/she wants to pick it up at a different location on the appropriate day....too much mind changing & running around (patient ultimately decides which pharmacy the Rx is sent to originally).
Oh I see what you are saying. My store already did that before the update, I thought you were cashing out ones that were too soon or something.
That update was already in effect before this recent update. The point of the more recent update is to be able to transfer on-hold scripts without calling the store, but since IT is apparently incapable of making the hardcopy image available to the receiving store the workaround is requiring verification for on-hold scripts which wastes tons of time seeing as many stores put 100+ scripts on hold daily for things that are too early.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,723
- Reaction score
- 3,499
I left before this update, so this may be outdated info. You can see the hardcopy on transfers by pressing an extra function (maybe "V" to view) during the initial verification process. However, nobody knew about it, so nobody did it. Also, once that verification was complete, the image then disappeared forever (even rebills of the same fill had no image). But, if you did spot an error, you also couldn't edit the Rx, because it was based on the transfer. So, if it was typed as BID but supposed to be Q12 hours and the original RPh thought "close enough" but you cared when you saw the hardcopy image, you couldn't change it. You COULD put it on hold then edit the on-hold then generate the Rx again, but now it would have lost the image.
Well it seems like most people just delete the script and fax it so they have no record of it and I don't have the pharmacist's name or an rx number. So what am I supposed to do, enter it as a new script? The transferring pharmacy also has no record of it so I'm guessing that is where they got in trouble.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 7,932
- Reaction score
- 8,095
I'm an overnight and only see a handful of these on-hold ****s in QV and it drives me crazy, I can imagine how much time is wasted during the day. Even the first-fill **** in QV wastes a ton of time. Can they think of anything else that will waste our time??
Just wondering..
If Rph A verified wrong on Hold rx, then it was transferred to other store and RPh B verified and dispensed it, whose fault is gonna be?
If transferred On Hold Rx does not show actual rx image, that is a joke.
If Rph A verified wrong on Hold rx, then it was transferred to other store and RPh B verified and dispensed it, whose fault is gonna be?
If transferred On Hold Rx does not show actual rx image, that is a joke.
If you do that to another pharmacy/chain, Rph A is going to liable. Why should it be any different with inter-chain transfers? It is possible for Rph B to transcribe wrong info, then you can point finger at A or B but that is not your typical case.
I don't dispense anything without a Image. I don't care who lost it or what transfer won't show an Image.
Yeah theyre pushin my limits with this one. I actually like the new prescriber update because it helps techs from selecting the wrong prescriber. Took me a second to learn tricks of searching but I like it now and I feel more confident correct prescriber is being selected. But this new update, I don't know what they were trying to accomplish. Theres nothing to make this faster, or accurate, or anything for that matter.
