Yet another 1-up for automation

[Parklife]

We have already seen this
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20041918-1.html

And now 7 joint manipulation
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20041918-1.html


Personally, I don't see how this destroys the need for pharmacists. If anything, CVS will fire off all the pharmacy technicians and leave the pharmacist in charge of the automation/dealing with patients. I can see this happening in mail-order pharmacies more than retail. That retiring boomer population and uneducated lot being forced to get healthcare are NOT going to get their meds from a robot.

Thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Its Z]

UCSF had to do it because of their past history of incidents involving medications. Someone still has to fill the machines and pharmacist still needs to check it.

It may be a cliche' but in hospital settings, this is a welcomed technology because it does allow pharmacists to concentrate more on safe and effective medication use practice. And smart healthcare administrators understand the importance of quality and safety.

 

[Parklife]

UCSF had to do it because of their past history of incidents involving medications. Someone still has to fill the machines and pharmacist still needs to check it.

It may be a cliche' but in hospital settings, this is a welcomed technology because it does allow pharmacists to concentrate more on safe and effective medication use practice. And smart healthcare administrators understand the importance of quality and safety.

This is not real life.

 

[Its Z]

This is not real life.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Parklife]

Care to elaborate?

It was a half joke. Most people in general will value their dead presidents over quality. Especially now.

Remember, it's quantity not quality. Healthcare admins care about profits, not patients. I'd be a liar if I said it wasn't half true(hence, the half joke). They should value quality of care and safety, but often money will come first. And naturally too. I find it funny that whenever anyone considers money or compensation, it's automatically taboo. Everyone works for their own self-interest.

I can only guess the day and time when healthcare will be run by mid-level practitioners and robots. Still, there will always be that top portion of the food pyramid of pharmacists and professionals who make bank overseeing everything.

 

[Its Z]

Absolutely false in today's healthcare practice. Quantity is meaningless unless quality outcomes are achieved. Because, now quality outcome is intimately tied to reimbursement. And no, profit is not taboo because without it, hospitals can't stay open to pay the employees and take care of patients. Look at the hospitals that are profitable and thriving. They provide quality care lead by smart administrators.

Km not talking about retail pharmacy. Not my area of expertise.

 

[Its Z]

Im going to say pharmacy automation movement has been around for the past 30+ years...

In the retail setting, no doubt automation allowed increasing # of rx scripts per pharmacist ratio especially in mail order settings.

But in acute care, pharmacy automation has been instrumental in allowing changes in pharmacy practice while still requiring more and more FTEs.

 

[psychoandy]

Personally, I don't see how this destroys the need for pharmacists. If anything, CVS will fire off all the pharmacy technicians and leave the pharmacist in charge of the automation/dealing with patients. I can see this happening in mail-order pharmacies more than retail. That retiring boomer population and uneducated lot being forced to get healthcare are NOT going to get their meds from a robot.

Thoughts?

I don't think it will impact RPhs that much. Every retail pharmacy I have worked at has had some form of pharmacy robotics. Many already get their maintenance meds (81mg ASA, hctz, lisinopril, metformin, etc) from robots! But due to pharmacy law it still has to be checked, and someone does have to verify pt identifiers and ring them up.

It sucks to say, but regarding techs: adapt or die. The brightest and best techs I work with weren't the ones who picked the fastest/most effectively; they were the ones who became irreplaceable because they knew how every system operated, how to do everything, and didn't rest on their laurels doing the bare minimum.

Remember, it's quantity not quality. Healthcare admins care about profits, not patients. I'd be a liar if I said it wasn't half true(hence, the half joke). They should value quality of care and safety, but often money will come first..

Assuming the cost of robots isn't completely crazy, isn't it worth it for a healthcare administrator to buy one in order to improve productivity/safety, lower # of techs (or more likely reallocate for other functions eg med rec), and save money in the long run?

of course, if we're talking a for-profit health system, all of my observations go out the window.