Pharmacy work changing?

[Vicodin]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I read somewhere that technology is making it so that Pharmacists will be spending less time filling prescriptions and more time with patients. Automated filling and such.

What are your opinions?

 

[Caverject]

Robots are going to rule the world and pharmacists will no longer be needed!!!

 

[ultracet]

we're all going to be out of a job

 

[pharmeronadell]

Blah blah blah. They've been saying that since the early 1990's. 😉

 

[KUMoose]

Everyone get your sabots out and throw them at the mean machines.

Surely one of them will stop it! 😀

 

[fairyofsong]

So if "robots" do the dispensing, doesn't it open pharmacists up for more important jobs such as counseling and rx compliance? Automation is precise and computers will always be more accurate (as far as doing a task precisely, correctly, efficiently and quickly) than humans.

I can only see this as a plus. 🙂

 

[Portman]

Blah blah blah. They've been saying that since the early 1990's. 😉

there is already a pharmacy trying this, the meds came out in a bag all stapled and ready !

its not gonna kill the pharms jobs its gonna kill us clerks jobs

 

[konkan]

What it really gonna kill is pharm. techs. seriously. I don't think will are gonna see them in pharmacies in 10 years at all.

 

[tupac_don]

I read somewhere that technology is making it so that Pharmacists will be spending less time filling prescriptions and more time with patients. Automated filling and such.

What are your opinions?

That would mean, less pharmacists, meaning jobs will be tougher to find. Now instead of having 2 pharmacist do the job, they will hire only one.

 

[tupac_don]

I read somewhere that technology is making it so that Pharmacists will be spending less time filling prescriptions and more time with patients. Automated filling and such.

What are your opinions?

You have a sweet ass avatar. Is that how you see yourself as a battle squirrel???

 

[unoriginal]

Robots are going to rule the world and pharmacists will no longer be needed!!!

what i dont understand is why it takes 6 years to train for something a well-trained monkey/robot could do. 😕

 

[Requiem]

what i dont understand is why it takes 6 years to train for something a well-trained monkey/robot could do. 😕

The problem with this post is that it isn't an effective troll; you took no time, preparation or thought.

I request bannishment.

 

[pharmeronadell]

If you are seriously interested in this kind of stuff, check out http://www.asteres.com . They make a refill dispensing machine. What is really interesting to me is that the company is managed by some people who brought us Pyxis MedStations, and the APS RxOBOT (now owned by McKesson). I worked with a RxOBOT (Pyxis too) for a couple of years, and it really does take the tediousness out of cart filling. I myself am pretty impressed with what Asteres is doing. Long's already has implemented their product, and CVS and Walgreen's are considering it, too.

Someone needs to operate it, so it won't eliminate techs, just give them the opportunity to do others things. Just my $0.02.

 

[konkan]

Someone needs to operate it, so it won't eliminate techs, just give them the opportunity to do others things. Just my $0.02.[/QUOTE]

The only operation process for this machine would be to refill it with medications. Of course, it will be done by pharmacist because he/she is responsible for drugs. That's it. So what will we need pharm. techs for? To push "start" button? to wipe off the dust of the machine?

 

[dgroulx]

Someone needs to operate it, so it won't eliminate techs, just give them the opportunity to do others things. Just my $0.02.

The only operation process for this machine would be to refill it with medications. Of course, it will be done by pharmacist because he/she is responsible for drugs. That's it. So what will we need pharm. techs for? To push "start" button? to wipe off the dust of the machine?[/QUOTE]

The robot in our Wags practically needs a full time tech to keep up with it. You have to fill it with vials, caps & labels. You have to calibrate cells when they don't count correctly (which is often). You have to recount any kind of control med, which at my store is 90% of the scripts.

Because of these types of problems, I don't see any jobs being eliminated in the immediate future. For the ATM type thing where people pick up their meds, all you eliminate is some cashiering which is a very small amount of the work done by a tech. When I cashier, most people at my store handed me their credit card as they weren't comfortable using technology. A large number of people on meds are elderly. I can't see them getting their meds from a dispensing machine.

 

[unoriginal]

The problem with this post is that it isn't an effective troll; you took no time, preparation or thought.

I request bannishment.

i am sorry i offended you.

What I see in the future is a machine very much like an ATM. No paper scripts- every person has an electronic keycard/stick that the physician puts your prescription on. Then you take it to the store or another part of his office and stick it into a machine. The machine reads it, checks your record for allergies and what other medications your on, you slip your money in, and it gives you your prescription and prints off the info about the meds. Then you just need someone that fills the machine a couple times a week. This would increase profit margins for the pharm companies/drug stores tremendously. They will be called APMs (automatic pharmacy machines). But just as ATMs have not replaced tellers, i dont think they will be able to replace the pharmacist. Perhaps they won't put narcotics in these machines... but whoever invents this machine is going to make out real well...

 

[Sosumi]

i am sorry i offended you.

What I see in the future is a machine very much like an ATM. No paper scripts- every person has an electronic keycard/stick that the physician puts your prescription on. Then you take it to the store or another part of his office and stick it into a machine. The machine reads it, checks your record for allergies and what other medications your on, you slip your money in, and it gives you your prescription and prints off the info about the meds. Then you just need someone that fills the machine a couple times a week. This would increase profit margins for the pharm companies/drug stores tremendously. They will be called APMs (automatic pharmacy machines). But just as ATMs have not replaced tellers, i dont think they will be able to replace the pharmacist. Perhaps they won't put narcotics in these machines... but whoever invents this machine is going to make out real well...

Nice fantasy. You assume that's the only thing that goes on at a pharmacy.

 

[unoriginal]

Nice fantasy. You assume that's the only thing that goes on at a pharmacy.

i worked for 2 years at 2 different pharmacies for 50-60 hrs a week during the summers. i know what goes on at a pharmacy and i know that this would be very possible for 95% of the time. 95% of the pharmacists job was to type the script into the computer (which i as a tech also did). the tech then filled it and the pharmacist checked it and out it went. there might of been a, "be sure to take before bed"/"with food", thrown in there. This could easily been done by a machine- and probably more accurately at that.

it is already true that computers check for drug rxns. few drugs need to be mixed and the ones that do could be done by machines- have you seen the machines that make coffee and hot chocholate? all they do is mix a powder with water....

Some times he/she would have to haggle with prescription companies or call the doctor's office. But, even us techs did a lot of this. I am not saying that a pharmacist could be replaced by a machine.... but a machine could certianly do most of the work. i woudl be very afraid of this if i were still going into this field and think it is some thing very real to consider.

what aspect of the retail job do you think could not be done by a machine? And don't say counseling... it is perhaps less than 5% of the job and most of it can be done by the Dr. or through the printed off paperwork.

 

[dgroulx]

what aspect of the retail job do you think could not be done by a machine? And don't say counseling... it is perhaps less than 5% of the job and most of it can be done by the Dr. or through the printed off paperwork.

Did you work with a robot in retail pharmacy? They are a nightmare. I don't think that they save that much time.

Most of the pharmacist's time in my store is spent verifying fills, including the ones filled by the robot. The second most frequent task is counseling patients either at the window or on the telephone. In fact, it was hard for our pharmacists to make that 15 minute fill time because they put aside verifying in order to counsel. We've had lines at our counseling window.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

The main job of a pharmacist is to ensure the dispensing of the right medication to the right patient. The pharmacist also checks for interactions and duplicate therapy. There is still a need for pharmacists because somewhere in between, you have a human being entering the prescription (doctor or tech), and handing out the medication.

If your pharmacist is typing, then your pharmacy is not utilizing the best economic method. Typing is already replaced by techs. Not to mention. . . . you really don't need to type except to keep track of patient profile. Its not required by law for a pharmacy to be organized, just that the pharmacy be able to hand over data when they are being audited.

 

[bananaface]

In hospitals a pharmacist will often enter the prescription orders. Technicians I have met (myself included when I was a tech) do not have the proper training to do so.

In a retail environment, sometimes it doesn't matter who does what, so long as you are working to get things done. For example, if 12 new orders come in at once and the pharmacist would otherwise be twiddling their fingers, they really should help type. It's important that pharmacists know how to do every job in the pharmacy efficiently, because one never knows when their only technician will end up going home sick and leaving them to run the place on their own.

Technology is only useful as long as there is some part of your day which can routinely and economocally be automated out. Most of my day can't. Filling can be automated in high volume situations. But, as has been said before, maintaining those filling machines is a time heavy process in and of itself.

Automation is not a threat, but a tool. It frees us up to spend more time on things which are important and perhaps to take on some important things we didn't have time for before.

 

[unoriginal]

The main job of a pharmacist is to ensure the dispensing of the right medication to the right patient. The pharmacist also checks for interactions and duplicate therapy. There is still a need for pharmacists because somewhere in between, you have a human being entering the prescription (doctor or tech), and handing out the medication.

yes, and a machine could do this "main job". Customer would stick in the memory stick that the doc encoded the prescription on. The machine would then fill that prescription (0% error) and bill the insurance company. if there was a problem with billing it would have the customer call the insurance company right there in the store. It could even play a message, "do not drink alcohol", and the print off the info and stick it in the bag. then, you would just have someone (the pharmacist?) who keeps these machines stocked. i think this would be very possible and it would save a lot of money too. i am surpised there isn't something like this already...

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

Let me clarify my point a little bit more unoriginal, a doctor does not specialize in drugs and only took a semester worth of class in it. The doctor does not also have time to get together with other doctors and go over what medications the doctor took previously. This is the job of a pharmacist. A machine cannot be coded with every possible interaction there is or find a doctor's error. A machine can only tell you that there is an interaction with two main classes of drugs. They cannot tell you how severe the interaction is and if it is all right for the patient to take it. They cannot keep track of a patient's profile. This is up to the pharmacist. The machine can fill a prescription with 0 percent error (in reality, a 3 percent to 5 percent error compare to the pharmacist's 10 percent), but a human being has to ENTER the information. If what you hold true, they should have computers that replace doctor's diagnosing capabilities. You are speaking as if doctors are not capable of making mistakes. A pharmacist, once again, is there not to fill but to verify that there minimal problems with the patient taking the medication.

P.S. Billing problems is not a pharmacist's concern but the COMPANY's concern (or independent pharmacy).

yes, and a machine could do this "main job". Customer would stick in the memory stick that the doc encoded the prescription on. The machine would then fill that prescription (0% error) and bill the insurance company. if there was a problem with billing it would have the customer call the insurance company right there in the store. It could even play a message, "do not drink alcohol", and the print off the info and stick it in the bag. then, you would just have someone (the pharmacist?) who keeps these machines stocked. i think this would be very possible and it would save a lot of money too. i am surpised there isn't something like this already...

 

[Sosumi]

i worked for 2 years at 2 different pharmacies for 50-60 hrs a week during the summers. i know what goes on at a pharmacy and i know that this would be very possible for 95% of the time. 95% of the pharmacists job was to type the script into the computer (which i as a tech also did). the tech then filled it and the pharmacist checked it and out it went. there might of been a, "be sure to take before bed"/"with food", thrown in there. This could easily been done by a machine- and probably more accurately at that.

it is already true that computers check for drug rxns. few drugs need to be mixed and the ones that do could be done by machines- have you seen the machines that make coffee and hot chocholate? all they do is mix a powder with water....

Some times he/she would have to haggle with prescription companies or call the doctor's office. But, even us techs did a lot of this. I am not saying that a pharmacist could be replaced by a machine.... but a machine could certianly do most of the work. i woudl be very afraid of this if i were still going into this field and think it is some thing very real to consider.

what aspect of the retail job do you think could not be done by a machine? And don't say counseling... it is perhaps less than 5% of the job and most of it can be done by the Dr. or through the printed off paperwork.

I get it. You've worked as a technician so are an expert in the pharmacy profession.

1) Have you noticed how the majority of the patients are elderly? Most of them already have enough of a hard time using the computerized signature machine, how can we expect them to properly get their meds through a more sophisticated machine?

2) A lot of drug interactions are significant or not really severe but aren't coded in the verification, so it's up to the pharmacist's professional call whether to dispense the drug, call the doctor, or interpret the script properly (there are a lot of minor errors that prescribers make due to not knowing available dosage forms, proper dosage, etc.). Artificial intelligence is just never going to be able to have the entire thought process to be able to make these decisions. That's why they drill pharmacy students in the pharmaceutical care plan ad nauseum in therapeutics classes.

3) There are a lot of pharmacists out there who just feel too busy or don't really want to deal with their customers/patients, but there are many others who do. It's a huge difference in how satisfied the ones that do get counseled do. Many of these patients don't have the time, education, proper visual acuity, etc. to interpret the significance of side effects, indications, and usage of their drugs and others they might be taking over the counter.

4) Retail pharmacy is currently very mindless at times, but that's why the profession is trying to push into a more clinical focus. Pharmacists are a very underutilized resource. I've worked at several underserved areas and at more suburban upperclass ones and notice a huge difference in their usage. The poorer patients are much more respectful of your knowledge and really want and need your help. You really see the difference the pharmacist can make in their lives.

5) Over the counter drugs and herbals are very popular but poorly understood and misused by the public. Our pharmacist gets hounded about those questions all the time and make interventions at least 5 times a day. Another neglected fact is proper diet. We work in an urban area where fast food is very popular. Our pharmacist also often asked about nutritional supplements, ways to improve diet, and many other things that their doctor doesn't have time to explain or aren't always as knowledgeable about.

6) Retail pharmacy is not the only job out there for Pharm.D.'s. That's where currently the most jobs are, but there are many other settings. I've seen many Pharm.D.'s use their degree in so many other ways. At worst, it gets your foot in the door when combined with other professional degrees, informatics, industry, and government. I've seen the attraction of clinical pharmacy, consulting pharmacy, independent pharmacy, and research. You don't have to work retail if you don't want to. At worst, it's a good way to earn extra money while pursuing other interests.

7) As pointed out by previous posters, have you worked with the current robotics technology? They are very cumbersome and often require a lot more work than they're worth. Technology still has a long way to go before they make a pharmacist's job easier, let alone replacing them.

 

[unoriginal]

Let me clarify my point a little bit more unoriginal, a doctor does not specialize in drugs and only took a semester worth of class in it. The doctor does not also have time to get together with other doctors and go over what medications the doctor took previously. This is the job of a pharmacist.

good point.

A machine cannot be coded with every possible interaction there is or find a doctor's error. A machine can only tell you that there is an interaction with two main classes of drugs. They cannot tell you how severe the interaction is and if it is all right for the patient to take it. They cannot keep track of a patient's profile. This is up to the pharmacist. The machine can fill a prescription with 0 percent error (in reality, a 3 percent to 5 percent error compare to the pharmacist's 10 percent), but a human being has to ENTER the information.

Well, where I worked, the computer did do all of this. I think you are under estimating the power of computers.

If what you hold true, they should have computers that replace doctor's diagnosing capabilities. You are speaking as if doctors are not capable of making mistakes. A pharmacist, once again, is there not to fill but to verify that there minimal problems with the patient taking the medication.

They have/are trying to develop computers that make diagnosises that could replace physicians! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/4738365.stm

"However it will provide them with invaluable assistance by evaluating the complex interactions of different drugs which are needed to treat patients and protect them against the danger of septic shock."

In another research article I read awhile ago that I can't seem to find they had a computer that was handling primary care issues. It was deemed ineffective because it lacked the physician-patient relationship. The patients did not understand much of what the computer was telling them and were not motivated to follow the treatment plan.

You are right though about the need for some system that checks physicians drug choices. I know they make mistakes- I have witnessed this. I am not saying they don't. But I am saying a computer could very well do this.

P.S. Billing problems is not a pharmacist's concern but the COMPANY's concern (or independent pharmacy).

One of the places I worked was an independent pharmacy. But regardless, if the drug was not covered under the patient's insurance, we would have to call the insurance company and figure out what the problem was and find an alternative. Some times it was the insurance company's mistake. Other times, we would have to call the doc. Like for instance- if it were a DAW, some times there were problems getting it covered. Or if the drug required a prior authorization....

 

[unoriginal]

I get it. You've worked as a technician so are an expert in the pharmacy profession.

1) Have you noticed how the majority of the patients are elderly? Most of them already have enough of a hard time using the computerized signature machine, how can we expect them to properly get their meds through a more sophisticated machine?

2) A lot of drug interactions are significant or not really severe but aren't coded in the verification, so it's up to the pharmacist's professional call whether to dispense the drug, call the doctor, or interpret the script properly (there are a lot of minor errors that prescribers make due to not knowing available dosage forms, proper dosage, etc.). Artificial intelligence is just never going to be able to have the entire thought process to be able to make these decisions. That's why they drill pharmacy students in the pharmaceutical care plan ad nauseum in therapeutics classes.

3) There are a lot of pharmacists out there who just feel too busy or don't really want to deal with their customers/patients, but there are many others who do. It's a huge difference in how satisfied the ones that do get counseled do. Many of these patients don't have the time, education, proper visual acuity, etc. to interpret the significance of side effects, indications, and usage of their drugs and others they might be taking over the counter.

4) Retail pharmacy is currently very mindless at times, but that's why the profession is trying to push into a more clinical focus. Pharmacists are a very underutilized resource. I've worked at several underserved areas and at more suburban upperclass ones and notice a huge difference in their usage. The poorer patients are much more respectful of your knowledge and really want and need your help. You really see the difference the pharmacist can make in their lives.

5) Over the counter drugs and herbals are very popular but poorly understood and misused by the public. Our pharmacist gets hounded about those questions all the time and make interventions at least 5 times a day. Another neglected fact is proper diet. We work in an urban area where fast food is very popular. Our pharmacist also often asked about nutritional supplements, ways to improve diet, and many other things that their doctor doesn't have time to explain or aren't always as knowledgeable about.

6) Retail pharmacy is not the only job out there for Pharm.D.'s. That's where currently the most jobs are, but there are many other settings. I've seen many Pharm.D.'s use their degree in so many other ways. At worst, it gets your foot in the door when combined with other professional degrees, informatics, industry, and government. I've seen the attraction of clinical pharmacy, consulting pharmacy, independent pharmacy, and research. You don't have to work retail if you don't want to. At worst, it's a good way to earn extra money while pursuing other interests.

7) As pointed out by previous posters, have you worked with the current robotics technology? They are very cumbersome and often require a lot more work than they're worth. Technology still has a long way to go before they make a pharmacist's job easier, let alone replacing them.

I agree with a lot of your points. I do not claim to be an expert and I am certainly not a pharmacist. I believe the pharmacist is underutilized. I by no means think that the pharmacist will be completely replaced (nor the physician). But, I disagree when you say that a computer can't do the job. I think there is a niche for an automated system, just as there is for ATMs. They already have computers that do most of what a pharmacist does. I have limited use of the current robotics technology, but i am not talking about current robotic technology. You know, the first computers were cumbersome to use- they took up a whole room.

I do not believe that it is out of the realm of imagination that a machine could fill a prescriptions while checking drug interactions & allergies. Just as most people do not always go to ATMs, I do not think people would always utilize these automated fillers. The elderly and select people who are on a million different drugs could still go see the pharmacist. But a majority of healthy people that just need an antibiotic or their birth control could go the automated filler.

 

[Sosumi]

I agree with a lot of your points. I do not claim to be an expert and I am certainly not a pharmacist. I believe the pharmacist is underutilized. I by no means think that the pharmacist will be completely replaced (nor the physician). But, I disagree when you say that a computer can't do the job. I think there is a niche for an automated system, just as there is for ATMs. They already have computers that do most of what a pharmacist does. I have limited use of the current robotics technology, but i am not talking about current robotic technology. You know, the first computers were cumbersome to use- they took up a whole room.

I do not believe that it is out of the realm of imagination that a machine could fill a prescriptions while checking drug interactions & allergies. Just as most people do not always go to ATMs, I do not think people would always utilize these automated fillers. The elderly and select people who are on a million different drugs could still go see the pharmacist. But a majority of healthy people that just need an antibiotic or their birth control could go the automated filler.

That fact that computers may one day help with a lot of the filling is a big reason why pharmacists who do nothing for the profession but check, gab on the phone, never counsel, yet expect to get paid $50/hr really annoy me. Do they think that big chains and department stores won't soon wise up and find ways of cutting their expenses?

Pharmacy must make the patients and employers realize their value, because the law that makes it so only pharmacists can dispense medications might not always be there. What if really well trained technicians are allowed to do this? They can already in the military after training.