Does a pharmacist have the same knowledge as a doctor

[Abilene]

Just a question for you folks that are currently in pharmacy school or already out there working in the field....your answer is greatly appreciated...

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[jdpharmd?]

Just a question for you folks that are currently in pharmacy school or already out there working in the field....your answer is greatly appreciated...

Nope. Closing thread. Bannana, we need you now more than ever!

 

[fun8stuff]

Just a question for you folks that are currently in pharmacy school or already out there working in the field....your answer is greatly appreciated...

if they had the same knowledge, what would be the point of having pharmacy school and medical school? If they were the same, pharmacists and physicians would be interchangable....

 

[bananaface]

Well, this topic is something that alot of people simply don't understand. As long as it doesn't turn into a "vs." thread, I think it's safe to compare our knowledge base. Perhaps we could try and answer this specific question completely and link this thread to the FAQ.

What do you think, jd? I don't really feel comfortable closing this particular thread. But, I could transfer it to pre-pharmacy if people prefer that.

Should we discuss "What knowledge and training is unique to pharmacy"?

 

[Caverject]

Pharmacists do not even come close to the knowledge of pathophysiology a doctor has. Doctors don't come close either to the knowledge of pharmaceutical therapeutics, thus you can not compare the two.

 

[ultracet]

Pharmacists do not even come close to the knowledge of pathophysiology a doctor has. Doctors don't come close either to the knowledge of pharmaceutical therapeutics, thus you can not compare the two.

agreed. this comparison is absolute ridiculous....

The doctor knows more about their stuff... we know more about our...
doctor stuff- pathophys, diagnosis, etc.
pharmacy stuff- moa of drugs, interactions, etc as well as kinetics.

if i wanted to know what a doctor did i would be in med school

 

[Abilene]

some of you thought it was a ridiculous question....I just thought it was kind of strange to be asked that during pharmacy school interview...that was one of the questions that I found in one of the pharmacy interview feedbacks from the southern nevada school (3/10/2004 3:26:56 PM)....just wanted to see what those of you who already know more about the field of pharmacy have to say... thankx for responding...chill...

 

[ultracet]

some of you thought it was a ridiculous question....I just thought it was kind of strange to be asked that during pharmacy school interview...that was one of the questions that I found in one of the pharmacy interview feedbacks from the southern nevada school (3/10/2004 3:26:56 PM)....just wanted to see what those of you who already know more about the field of pharmacy have to say... thankx for responding...chill...

wow that is a ridiculous question ESPECIALLY from an interviewer what did you say in it?? i think i would have been floored that they even asked about that!

 

[bananaface]

I was thinking of compounding and all of the structure-activity relationship business that physicians are not exposed to.

 

[Caverject]

wow that is a ridiculous question ESPECIALLY from an interviewer what did you say in it?? i think i would have been floored that they even asked about that!

maybe it was to judge reaction?

 

[ultracet]

maybe it was to judge reaction?

i don't know how i would have reacted in an interview type setting but in retrospect the temptation would be to say.... "i guess that all depends on what you are teaching them here" and then not expect an acceptance.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Does a pharmacist have the same knowledge as a doctor

...but when I graduate, I WILL be a doctor....

Riddle me this, señor. Does a physician have the same knowledge as a pharmacist? (Which is how I would reply if you were being serious...)

 

[SlaveRPH]

The knowledge of the physician is more focused on diagnosis and treatment. I do feel physicians have a very good knowledge of pharmaceuticals. In some cases I feel they know more than a pharmacists. For example, a cardiologist has an excellent knowledge of cardiovascular drugs, their side effects and interactions. Physicians have an advantage over pharmacists in that they see the patients and the affects of the drugs. The problem for pharmacists has always been the disconnect from the patient. I feel we should stop portraying physicians as drug knowledge challenged. The ones I have known are very good and in some cases more knowledgeable than the pharmacists. I believe that pharmacists cannot be completely effective in their profession until they are connected with the patient and their disease state, labs and drug therapy.

Just a question for you folks that are currently in pharmacy school or already out there working in the field....your answer is greatly appreciated...

 

[bananaface]

Not all physicians are focused on treatment of disease. Hanging out with the pathology folks here has made me realize that we stereotype physicians as FPs in the same way that other people stereotype us as being retail pharmacists.

 

[phoenixsupra]

Just a question for you folks that are currently in pharmacy school or already out there working in the field....your answer is greatly appreciated...

Well, pharmacists do seem to have lot's of knowledge but they just don't seem able to get the arrogance part down. You guys just don't seem anyway close to being obnoxious enough to be doctors.

 

[phoenixsupra]

the same way that other people stereotype us as being retail pharmacists.

C'mon, banana. Who would do that?

 

[Trancelucent1]

Well, pharmacists do seem to have lot's of knowledge but they just don't seem able to get the arrogance part down. You guys just don't seem anyway close to being obnoxious enough to be doctors.

Good one!

 

[SlaveRPH]

I agree that not all doctors are FP's. The reason I used a specialist was to make a point that such doctors have very good knowledge of the drugs they maily use. Yes there are lots of other areas that they practice in. However pathologist rarely see patients. I believe the key is for pharmacists to realize their limitations, get closer to the patient treatment sources, come with true studies that show their worth and what it is, selectivielt enter service areas where they offer an economic benefit. Giving shots or performing functions that can be done by lower paid personnel is not the future of pharmacy.

Not all physicians are focused on treatment of disease. Hanging out with the pathology folks here has made me realize that we stereotype physicians as FPs in the same way that other people stereotype us as being retail pharmacists.

 

[bananaface]

My point though was that it is a hard comparison to make, because of the varying training within the field of medicine. The drug knowledge of physicians (MDs and DOs ) is mostly gained during residency and practice, not medical school itself. There isn't alot of unified detailed drug knowledge common to all the medical specialities.

Now, this is my personal soapbox thing, but I think of "clinical" as a state of mind, not a subset of pharmacy practice. Retail pharmacists and others will probably have an increasing potential to engage (profitably) in medication therapy management in the future. I work for a local chain that gives plenty of staff support and encourages us to do more than just basic dispensory functions. I wouldn't work anywhere that I didn't feel let me live up to my potential.

There are certainly functions which can make retail stores more profitable when done by personnel who are paid less. But, getting the job done cheaper may not necessarily be the wisest thing. If quality of care is decreased by the changes (decreased or absent "face time" with pharmacists, etc) this may not be something that we are willing to accept, as a profession. It's hard to say without getting more specific.

Immunizations are currently profitable and the personal interaction often leads to patient retention by letting people meet a pharmacist on staff.

 

[tupac_don]

The knowledge of the physician is more focused on diagnosis and treatment. I do feel physicians have a very good knowledge of pharmaceuticals. In some cases I feel they know more than a pharmacists. For example, a cardiologist has an excellent knowledge of cardiovascular drugs, their side effects and interactions. Physicians have an advantage over pharmacists in that they see the patients and the affects of the drugs. The problem for pharmacists has always been the disconnect from the patient. I feel we should stop portraying physicians as drug knowledge challenged. The ones I have known are very good and in some cases more knowledgeable than the pharmacists. I believe that pharmacists cannot be completely effective in their profession until they are connected with the patient and their disease state, labs and drug therapy.

You hit it on the nose. Doctors are actually very knowledgable about drugs. Particularly those that are specialized. Also like you said they have an intimate knowledge of SE of drugs, b/c they directly see their effect in pts. Unlike a pharmacist who doesn't see the same pt every day and goes home at 6 oclock. Doctors who don't have very strong knowledge in drugs are usually interns and residents, rarely attendings. Doctors also have the background of the disease knowledge and pathophysiology and using the drugs is the final piece of the puzzle. Now if pharmacists would have more pathophysiology knowledge they could be par-par with doctors. However thaqt would involve complete restructuring of pharmacy program. Just my two cents.

 

[ZpackSux]

Cardiologists will most likely know more about cardiovascular drugs than the most pharmacists. Infectious disease physician will know more about antibiotics then the most pharmacists.. so on.

But a pharmacist will know more about antibiotics than a typical cardiologist and a pharmacist will know more about cardiovascular drugs than the ID physician.

Pharmacists will have a broader general knowledge about most drugs and are more familiar with more drugs than the most specialized docs. Anesthesiologists are experts with anesthetics, neuromuscular blockers and analgesics.. but when it comes to anti-diabetics or antibiotics..they'll be scrambling...

But there is no doubt physicians are the experts in diagnostic science. Surgeons know how to do the surgeries.. some pharmacists are experts in pharmacotherapy.

But no one can parallel the phramacoeconomics knowledge of a well trained pharmacist.

 

[SlaveRPH]

And how many jobs are there and who pays for this service. If you want to talk economics you'll have to cut and past things and take credit for them. You know like you did on the other boards you post. I'm glad you're here. We can have a lively debate. No matter how you cut the cake your spin of pharmacy represents a very small minority of positions. The truth is most positions have very little to do with the clinical area the colleges are pushing today. The main use of pharmacoeconomics that I have seen is in HMO's and PBM's. HMO's like to push the use of out dated generics amitryptiline over celexa or at PBM's where they want pharmacists to push the patient to the higher rebated drug. There have even been lawsuits on the latter one. I'm glad you know economics. You'll understand that until there is a solid proven cash flow and entities that will pay for the service clinical pharmacy will continue to go nowhere. 35 years ago they were pushing it in colleges of pharmacy. The big deal was to get the colleges of pharmacy to be located and/or have class work in large medical centers. The acceptance has just never exploded like they planned.

Cardiologists will most likely know more about cardiovascular drugs than the most pharmacists. Infectious disease physician will know more about antibiotics then the most pharmacists.. so on.

But a pharmacist will know more about antibiotics than a typical cardiologist and a pharmacist will know more about cardiovascular drugs than the ID physician.

Pharmacists will have a broader general knowledge about most drugs and are more familiar with more drugs than the most specialized docs. Anesthesiologists are experts with anesthetics, neuromuscular blockers and analgesics.. but when it comes to anti-diabetics or antibiotics..they'll be scrambling...

But there is no doubt physicians are the experts in diagnostic science. Surgeons know how to do the surgeries.. some pharmacists are experts in pharmacotherapy.

But no one can parallel the phramacoeconomics knowledge of a well trained pharmacist.

 

[bananaface]

Please do not call people out for events which transpired outside of SDN.

Thank you.

- Anna

 

[ZpackSux]

LOL..

Every director of pharmacy and clinical coordinator position deals with pharmacoeconomics every day. Just because it doesn't consititute a majority of poistions out there, it doesn't mean it should be overlooked.

We do substitue Lexapro with Celexa.. but not with a tricyclic.

But stick to the topic... it was about the knowledge variance between physicians and pharmacists.

So who's the expert in pharm-eco? pharmacists or physician?

A typical physician has no clue how much it costs to treat MRSA with Vanco over 10 day period vs using Zyvox. Do you?

And how many jobs are there and who pays for this service. If you want to talk economics you'll have to cut and past things and take credit for them. You know like you did on the other boards you post. I'm glad you're here. We can have a lively debate. No matter how you cut the cake your spin of pharmacy represents a very small minority of positions. The truth is most positions have very little to do with the clinical area the colleges are pushing today. The main use of pharmacoeconomics that I have seen is in HMO's and PBM's. HMO's like to push the use of out dated generics amitryptiline over celexa or at PBM's where they want pharmacists to push the patient to the higher rebated drug. There have even been lawsuits on the latter one. I'm glad you know economics. You'll understand that until there is a solid proven cash flow and entities that will pay for the service clinical pharmacy will continue to go nowhere. 35 years ago they were pushing it in colleges of pharmacy. The big deal was to get the colleges of pharmacy to be located and/or have class work in large medical centers. The acceptance has just never exploded like they planned.