out of curiousity

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

nev

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
456
Reaction score
1
Hi,
I dont mean to stir up any sort of revolt ....I am just curious about this question. Besides the legal issues, can a hospital run without a pharamcist? That is if we have a hospital running with the minimum number of health care staff.
Thanks
Nev
 
Yes, hospitals can under certain conditions. Not the brightest idea though, the nurses get their licenses screwed from this.

I believe Colorado has a strange law that says that only a technician need be present and a supervisory pharmacist is only needed for the record in a hospital. I didn't believe it until one of my friends went on vacation from there and said that there wasn't a relief hired.
 
According to California law, a hospital requires 8 services: medical, nursing, surgical, anesthesia, laboratory, radiology, PHARMACY and dietary.

The only way to "cheat" out of pharmacy services in a hospital that I know of is if the facility contains 100 or less beds... if so then the only requirement is that there be a consultant pharmacist who does at least quarterly reviews and reports to the board once a year.
 
lord999 said:
Yes, hospitals can under certain conditions. Not the brightest idea though, the nurses get their licenses screwed from this.

I believe Colorado has a strange law that says that only a technician need be present and a supervisory pharmacist is only needed for the record in a hospital. I didn't believe it until one of my friends went on vacation from there and said that there wasn't a relief hired.

Both Colorado and Texas have such laws. Both are limited to 100 beds or less.
The tiny hospital in Walsenburg Colorado has a feisty full time tech who is
very competent thank you very much and eight hours per week of
registered pharmacist to look over narcotic records and ensure compliance with law and JCAH standards. They are eight very easy hours....
 
nev said:
Hi,
I dont mean to stir up any sort of revolt ....I am just curious about this question. Besides the legal issues, can a hospital run without a pharamcist? That is if we have a hospital running with the minimum number of health care staff.
Thanks
Nev

Technically it can run without pharmacist. But remember, pharmacist train in dispensing meds, and provide policy and procedures, for formularies, and different order sets that are made. Also they intricately know and understand stability info and all that stuff. Now technically in times of emergency you could have others running it, but really it's not a feasible option on long term. Now if you are asking if a hospital can run without pharmacy specialists, then the answer is yes, but without staff pharmacists, very doubtfull. I mean who would replace them, nurses, doctors??? It's like saying can a hospital run without nurses. You do need someone who is knowledgable about meds and making them and will do only that, to assure right meds being prepared and delivered. Otherwise I think you would have a lot more errors if no pharmacists. But pharmacy specialists, are different they are more rounding, and answering questions and more deal with doctors rather than do trenchwork in central pharmacy dealing with preparation, checking, order entry and all that jazz. They can be dispensable, if a hospital is in dire straits, but staff pharmacists, nope. Hope that helps.
 
tupac_don said:
Technically it can run without pharmacist. But remember, pharmacist train in dispensing meds, and provide policy and procedures, for formularies, and different order sets that are made. Also they intricately know and understand stability info and all that stuff. Now technically in times of emergency you could have others running it, but really it's not a feasible option on long term. Now if you are asking if a hospital can run without pharmacy specialists, then the answer is yes, but without staff pharmacists, very doubtfull. I mean who would replace them, nurses, doctors??? It's like saying can a hospital run without nurses. You do need someone who is knowledgable about meds and making them and will do only that, to assure right meds being prepared and delivered. Otherwise I think you would have a lot more errors if no pharmacists. But pharmacy specialists, are different they are more rounding, and answering questions and more deal with doctors rather than do trenchwork in central pharmacy dealing with preparation, checking, order entry and all that jazz. They can be dispensable, if a hospital is in dire straits, but staff pharmacists, nope. Hope that helps.


I am two months now in the Army pharmacy system and I am extremely impressed with the quality of care delivered by the technical staff. These folks are dispensing and counseling patients. What a staff pharmacist gives you is depth and flexibility. Quick example; a physician showed up in my window after a bone marrow biopsy looking for her zpak. Prescriptions are
entered into the computer by the practitioner at the clinic level. Her doc dropped the ball on her and she was unhappy. Had she been with a pharmacy technician her option would have been to return to the clinic. I asked her if she was a doc and entered the zpak on the spot as a verbal order from her. She was very young and it had not occured to her as a possibility. She left smiling.
 
Top