>My understanding is that in order to be accredited, PharmD programs must conform to certain requirements. 6 months of rotations would not suffice. From what I know of schools across the nation, the program you attended is certainly the exception rather than the rule.
Where I attended school, there were something like 10 to 11 month long rotations, of these, less than half were actually clinical. The others were retail, community, hospital, etc. based. Accredidation was not a problem, and the school was the best in the state, with something like a > 96-98% pass rate the boards.
>I think that right now, you may have a point, that the education of PharmDs is not of a consistent quality across the nation.
I would certainly agree.
>But I do think that a substantial portion of today's graduates (although maybe not from your program), are very well-equipped to function at the same level as an NP or PA.
I just don't agree. The focus of the single pharmd clinical year is different that that of NP/PA, plain and simple. Are pharmds taught to read films, suture, perform minor proceedures etc. etc.?
When you say function at the same level as NP or PA, you are referring to practicing directly under a physician and prescribing under his authority? Or are you reffering to independent patient care?
>And they certainly are after having completed a residency, or equivalent clinical experience.
Depends just what is the focus of the residency. Optimizing patient medication is not the same, obviously.
>Perhaps the solution would be to offer a different licensing credential for those PharmD's who feel competent to practice on that level?
I feel that the solution, IF (and that is a big if) pharmds were to ever practice similar to a NP/PA UNDER a physicians supervision, would be to have a 2 year residency that undergoes the same accredidation as NP's/PA's. Pharmacists, certainly could undergo a 2 year residency and be competant to treat patients, as an NP/PA does. However, I feel the vast majority are NOT able to directly out of school.
>That would allow for verification of the skills needed, which I will grant you that pharmacist licensure in no way tests or requires.
I would agree that very stringent verification of needed skills would be required. Why not just have a 2 year residency and liscensure exam for those who wish to treat patients under supervision? No one is arguing that pharmacists CANNOT be made competant to treat patients, the aregument is that most simply are not. Why not simply become a NP/PA if treating patients is desired, rather than enter a profession that does not always train for it and a legal system that does not allow it?
Samoa, as someone who has been through pharmacy school, you can appreciate my questions: Why did the role of the pharmacist begin to change with the BS to PharmD? Personally I feel that in no small part it was the rise of automated dispensing technology. I feel that pharmacists, in the "old" model, saw the writing on the wall. A tech can type an RX into the computer, and within a minute have it out to the patient with no errors, provided it was typed in correctly. I feel that some innovative, and correct, pharmacists realized that in order to continue to secure a place in healthcare, pharmacists had to grow and expand. With this growth came the PharmD, drug expert title, and desire to prescribe and treat patients. I feel the profession is going through some growing pains, where the profession's desires (being the true drug experts, prescribing, treating patients, etc.) are being manifested, but the profession is not quite able to achieve them...yet. I may be wrong, but I believe the new paradigm of pharmacy has not been reached...but it likely will. I think it has too, or the profession would take a downturn and not command the salary it does.
Jason
)
