Okay, let's take your arguments and destroy them one at a time.
I think a person who prides himself on reading comprehension, you certainly did not read the original post where the OP said the AP did not want them to give out:
"Drug information monographs print out and sometimes carry over to a 2nd page." This would be a corporate requirement.
"Also, a 3rd page sometimes prints, like "Important things you need to know about" [drug name] along with warnings and information." This is a description of the med guide and this is a legal requirement.
So basically there is NO GOOD reason for the AP to ask the tech do something that contravenes the order of the store manager. No clinical justification, no legal justification. There is NO reason that this material should not be dispensed and the tech should not assist the AP in violating the law and company policy. If the AP doesn't want to give the out, she can throw them away herself.
Every company has their own corporate structure. For the most part the district manager or pharmacy supervisor hires the pharmacists and places them in the store. Where you go off the rails is your lack of understanding of how the world works. Once the techs tell the PIC that what you are doing, the PIC will chat with you. If you insist on this, the PIC will be speaking to the Supe or the DM and sooner or later you will be transferred. After you get kicked out of a couple of places, the Supe/DM will send you to work overnights where you rarely get to interact with other humans. But sooner or later your I am the God of pharmacy and I don't have to follow the rules attitude will catch up to you and the boss will realize you are not worth the aggravation and then one of 10 bazillion people looking for a job will have yours. I have seen it happen many many times. The attitude you have is born of the time when they would higher anybody with a license (pulse was optional). Now there are many people hungry to have your job and for $50+ dollars per hour will gladly give out whatever paper the company wants.
Again, having been around longer than you, I have seen a Pharmacy Manager get cited and fined by the board for actions taken by an employee pharmacist. In PA, it is required to place the exp of the drug on the label if the exp date is less than one year from the dispensing date. We had an RPh who did not want to do this and so we failed a routine inspection and had 30 days to fix the violations. Same thing on the re-inspection. So the PIC got cited as well as the RPh. I won't give out names, but don't tell what will or will not happen when you do not have sufficient experience to back up your claims. And the thing with the med guides is extremely serious since it will never be a primary offense. They will find something else and then go looking for more. Then they will go through the waiting bin and find 200 violations for not giving out the med guides.
This is the only rational point you make in this entire screed. Yes, there are overbearing PIC's. But in that case, the AP should do what the PIC wants and keep the techs out of the middle and address the issues directly with the PIC, like an adult and a professional. If the AP still has a problem, he should address them with Supe or the DM. Putting the tech in the middle of a pissing contest is wrong. It's bad for the tech, bad for the store and reflects poorly on anyone who would do it. I have been working in drug stores since 1976 and I have been a pharmacist since 1982. having worked, LTC, retail independent, retail chain and PBM. I have been a staff pharmacist, a floater and a PIC. I have seen pretty much everything there is to see in a retail pharmacy and I am pretty unbiased. I can tell you what just about everybody else on this thread is trying to tell you. Your attitude is not conducive to the smooth running of a pharmacy or any business for that matter. In the current environment, keep it at your own peril.
There he goes again... I'm going to have to crush your weak semblance of an argument one more time -- one point at a time. Unreal.
1. I explicitly stated since my first post that the med guides need to be included by law. You continue to ignore my request to provide documentation for the
backtracking accusation. Furthermore, the blatant logical fallacy you endorse assumes my argument is congruous with the AP's and that I endorse the full extent of his behavior and breaking the law through not including the med guides. Not the case, read more carefully next time.
2. Thank you. You prove my point exactly. The PIC still must go through the DM/Supe to have anything changed which is completely contrary to the "Staff Rph --> PIC --> DM" hypothesis. But complaining to the DM works both ways. Now, since you've been around the game so long, you should know / have seen this scenario -- if the AP can handle volume and is good with customers and the PIC wants to start a pissing contest over nitpicking company policies and procedures (like the extra sheets for example)
AND the PIC wants to go whining to the DM/Supe about trivial issues like this -- one too many times and the PIC may be the one headed for different pastures. Especially in this day, it is basic risk management. Better hope the PIC has his or her chops up. This scenario is especially true for a company like you work for that, face it, is notorious for only caring about their bottom line. You make the error of assuming that because a pharmacist "cuts corners" while still within the law that he or she lacks the other traits desired by his or her employer. On the flip side you make the error of assuming that because the PIC is the Joe Friday of pharmacy that he or she contains all of the desired traits of his or her employer. I have seen plenty of anal-retentive PIC's from the days of past that winded up on overnights/floating because they couldn't hack it (read: keep up and/or know which battles to pick) and I'm sure you have too.
3. Again there will always be cases that are outliers. Any statistical analysis of a large group of cases would produce the same result. Without review of the case you cite, I cannot argue it as there are many unknowns (did the PIC also not change the dates, was it a system error that was not addressed, did the PIC document educating the other employees, etc. etc.). Regardless, even if that was the case beyond a shadow of a doubt which it very easily could be,
this was not my argument as we all know the PIC is responsible for
some, but not all things of the legal nature when he or she is not present -- which makes the point you were trying to prove with that example a
moot point. However, if you read back, the phrase "responsible for
everything" was used and THAT phrase is what I responded to. Clearly this is not the case. FURTHERMORE, if that is not enough, the topic of the law should have never been breached as support for the med guide inclusion has so far been 100% on this thread on both sides of the argument(s).
4. Your phrase "putting the tech in the middle of a pissing contest is wrong. It's bad for the tech, bad for the store and reflects poorly on
anyone who would do it" -- is the entire crux of my argument. Thank you again. Now since you never explicitly stated it, do you agree with the PIC writing up the tech? Through basic interpretation of your exact quoted statement above and deductive logic (bad to put tech in middle, PIC puts tech in middle, therefore PIC behaves badly), it is apparent that you do not agree with the PIC's actions, as clearly the PIC falls under the category of "anyone". I'm glad we finally agree (sarcasm).
Thanks Z, now I don't feel so alone out in the mean world of SDN...
