Apparently, we are useless due to computers in a recent allopathic thread. Your thoughts?
Other forms
- Thread starter VCU07
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2006
- Messages
- 7,863
- Reaction score
- 7
I dunno, I thought we had enough support in there that there's no need to go all "inferiority complex" thread. I posted a few other thoughts in there. It may come back to haunt me, but eh...
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,424
- Reaction score
- 3
You must have failed to read the majority of the posts on the thread. The individuals spouting off about pharmacists being useless are the same individuals that always do this. The overwhelming majority of Residents and Attendings on the thread are pretty much shutting these guys down citing several reasons pharmacists are useful/essential (ie, the physicians who have actually spent time doing patient care in a hospital). I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation of the thread is my thought.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2006
- Messages
- 7,863
- Reaction score
- 7
It's probably more efficient and accurate than the 58% you can achieve in diagnosing by google. But really that's not the point. As a pharmacist we are supposed to counsel on the most severe (regardless of how uncommon) and the most common side effects. The computers pick up on these, but the The computer can't decide which ones you should override and which ones you shouldn't. Sometimes that information can exceed the doctor's if the patient isn't disclosing a full med history or isn't including herbals/dietary products. The computer can't cross-check something if it's not included in the variables it's given (gigo). That's probably why APAP overdose is still the leading cause of acute liver failure in the US. Really, I'd say we do enough that the doctor's can focus more on their duties and less on drug therapy questions that come up after the doctor's visit.
