Hi! I have a question that I thought would be good to ask on here. I am a pharmacist who is being forced to work under illegal tech to pharmacist ratio conditions. What would you do if you were forced to work under these conditions? I get nowhere when I complain to upper management about this and am still scheduled in this manner.
Tech to Pharmacist ratio
- Thread starter rx1983
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,449
- Reaction score
- 386
I'm assuming that you work with too many technicians then? Seems like a weird situation to be in.
I would think that you have minimal liability if you are not the PIC and are not involved with the scheduling; however, you have liability for your own license if you are unable to adequately supervise everything they're doing while they work under you.
If upper management isn't responsive to the situation, you could always act as a whistle blower and report this to your state board. I would make sure to have appropriate documentation of the situation (e-mail history with management, copies of past work schedules etc.) before I decided to proceed in this manner.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2014
- Messages
- 4,122
- Reaction score
- 4,099
If you have "too many techs" I would never complain. You are checking everything they do anyway - I think those rules that the state's passed did the opposite of what was intended. The intention was to have chains increase the number of Rph's, instead the chains simply decreased the number of techs. At least in my state any person that asks can increase the ration from 2-1 to 3-1. When I worked retail I had one store that had 5 techs and me, we cranked crap out like crazy. One typed, one counted and poured, I checked, two ran the registers and one floated (calling ins, pulling calls of the refills lines, etc). In a typical 13 hour shift we would pump out 400+ rx's a day and I actually rarely felt rushed.
Thank you for your feedback; I may call the board and attempt to report it anonymously. I am happy to hear the opinion that I have limited liability. I really do think I am in the right making an issue of this; pharmacists who agree to work under these conditions are costing others jobs and jeopardizing licenses. If the business demand necessitates more than 3 technicians there should be more than one pharmacist on the clock; at times during technician shift overlap we get up to 5 or 6 to 1. I do my best but I cannot say that I always double check their work because it is just too hectic, which is what the law attempts to avoid. It sounds like your situation may have been borderline manageable, and perhaps a waiver above 3 to 1 may be warranted in similar situations; I however do not work at a retail pharmacy, I work at a pharmacy that has several different rooms technicians work in which only further increases the need for supervision. When I have 5 technicians working in 3 different rooms of the building and I am the only one there to supervise that is not a safe scenario.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,723
- Reaction score
- 3,502
Hmmm...maybe we can fix the job market problem. I bet if we report every ratio violation we could nearly double the number of pharmacist work hours.
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,499
- Reaction score
- 1,689
In your dreams. The number of techs has nothing to do with it. The lack of pharmacists has everything to do with it. Everything they do is checked by a pharmacist so how many of them there are is really immaterial. It's how many of us there are that's the critical number.
So if you're scheduled to work at a pharmacy that schedules only you with 100 pharmacy technicians to get the job done and you're expected by your boss to double check all of their work in the time you have and keep your customers happy and if you don't you get in trouble when customer complaints happen leading to negative reviews and/or disciplinary action would you still say the number of techs has nothing to do with it? Extreme example but I hope it makes my point.
Also, not everyone's practice setting is the same. "Everything they do is checked by a pharmacist" is an assumption you are making based on your practice setting, assuming that mine is the same or similar. I guarantee it is not. Everything they do is supposed to be checked by a pharmacist. When there is inadequate supervision because 4, 5, or 6 techs are working with only 1 pharmacist this may not be the case and you may have prescriptions go out without a pharmacist double check.
Also, not everyone's practice setting is the same. "Everything they do is checked by a pharmacist" is an assumption you are making based on your practice setting, assuming that mine is the same or similar. I guarantee it is not. Everything they do is supposed to be checked by a pharmacist. When there is inadequate supervision because 4, 5, or 6 techs are working with only 1 pharmacist this may not be the case and you may have prescriptions go out without a pharmacist double check.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 200
- Reaction score
- 138
Lol, wow. What a joke of a post. If I had 100 pharmacy technicians I would jump and scream for joy. Screw having another rph, what do they really contribute besides helping me check? I can do that myself. Anyone with 3/4 of a normal brain can supervise employees around them, especially in the confines of a small pharmacy.
My store does 700 a day, and we have 2 RPhs at all times. If you took that rph away but gave me 4 techs to continuously man the register, count and fill at all times and get phone calls, I would be the happiest guy in the world.
Here we are struggling for more tech hours as a profession and you sit here and threaten to call the state board to report that we have TOO MANY technicians working. This is asinine. I can't believe I'm reading this.
Fellow community RPhs, when the chains decrease tech hours and keep the RPhs staffed the same, you have no one to blame but idiotic whistleblowers like the OP.
The more technicians I have, the more I an interrupted with questions that I really shouldn't be interrupted for. Anything over 4-5 and I start to lose focus on checking due to the constant interruptions...and I really do mean constant.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,892
- Reaction score
- 1,863
But you do realize that when a medication error occurs it is the pharmacist's license that pays the price right? If the workload remains the same, I don't see how more techs can result in more errors if all of the work continues to funnel to you. Sounds more like an issue of responsibility.
owlegrad
Uncontrollable Sarcasm Machine
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2009
- Messages
- 25,393
- Reaction score
- 12,070
Is that even legal? I wouldn't want my license on the line for something I didn't check myself. Number of techs has nothing to do with it, everything should be checked by the pharmacist.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,892
- Reaction score
- 1,863
We have a logged system of all orders that go out to the floor so the idea that a technician could send something out without me approving it is mind boggling. They would have to do it behind my back and without my permission, something that could happen in any kind of ratio. Either way, your license gets docked because you failed to supervise your techs.
Anonymously? You already brought it up to your management. I'm sure once your store is fined, they can figure out it is not a coincidence. Plus inviting board of pharmacy for an inspection and who knows what else they will find. Oh and while you have limited liability versus PIC, I would not want to be the pharmacist on duty when that inspector comes in.
As far response from the company you work for is also not going to be in your favor. You will be verifying same volume minus those extra techs on the clock. After all, the company is not breaking any laws by not giving you enough help.
As far response from the company you work for is also not going to be in your favor. You will be verifying same volume minus those extra techs on the clock. After all, the company is not breaking any laws by not giving you enough help.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 2,892
- Reaction score
- 1,863
By the way, I forgot to mention it in my previous post but I'll do it again: you are out of your mind if you think increasing tech ratios through the state board will translate to your chain giving you more tech hours.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2014
- Messages
- 4,122
- Reaction score
- 4,099
I love working at a hospital - we are about 1:1 ratio - that doesn't mean we don;t have enough techs, it means our CEO actually recognizes the value of a pharmacist and keeps letting us hire more
I think a lot of you would have to see my practice site to understand... a technician can receive and enter an order that is supposed to be double checked by a pharmacist before it is sent out. There is no built in computer or other safeguard to ensure that the double check happens, and orders have gone out without a pharmacist double check during busy times, usually on the shifts of new or floater pharmacists and new technicians who never get enough training and who aren't as used to this setting as I and others are. While I am diligent to avoid this happening I have come in to prescriptions left for me to review where these orders have already left the building. In these scenarios the techs are practicing pharmacy, and that is what I believe these ratio laws attempt to avoid; a company hiring excessive techs to do the work of the pharmacists. Again, I understand that many of you work in settings where companies have responsibly put in safeguards/engineering controls where this could not possibly happen but that is not the case everywhere.
This is why I believe that the issue of ratios is not so cut and dry 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 for everyone. There may be practice sites that have great computer safeguards and ability for 1 pharmacist to oversee 4-5 technicians where a higher ratio is warranted where at the same time there may be sites such as mine where more restriction is needed. My suggestion for state boards considering changes to the ratio laws is to actually inspect the workflow of each pharmacy and make a case by case determination. Although I don't work in retail I can certainly empathize with those of you who do as I have a family member who is a Walgreens pharmacist and is constantly telling me about the struggle for tech hours. It's crazy that I seem to have the opposite problem but IMO my problem is the company being cheap and not hiring enough pharmacists as opposed to too many techs.
This is why I believe that the issue of ratios is not so cut and dry 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 for everyone. There may be practice sites that have great computer safeguards and ability for 1 pharmacist to oversee 4-5 technicians where a higher ratio is warranted where at the same time there may be sites such as mine where more restriction is needed. My suggestion for state boards considering changes to the ratio laws is to actually inspect the workflow of each pharmacy and make a case by case determination. Although I don't work in retail I can certainly empathize with those of you who do as I have a family member who is a Walgreens pharmacist and is constantly telling me about the struggle for tech hours. It's crazy that I seem to have the opposite problem but IMO my problem is the company being cheap and not hiring enough pharmacists as opposed to too many techs.
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,499
- Reaction score
- 1,689
Then the systems and processes at your site are seriously deficient. At my place of employment that can't happen unless they give it away.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,177
- Reaction score
- 315
Check your state laws. Once you decide to report you are effectively quitting your job; keep that in mind. Regardless, if your work environment is making your life miserable, you probably don't want to stay there.
If you get unlawfully terminated for "anonymously reporting," yeah, you can hire a lawyer. You have funds for the retainer and time to pursue that avenue right? When your initial issue regarding unlawful termination is taken care of, the matter becomes public record and it may affect your future employment. How much money are you willing to spend on litigation? Are you OK with the board mandating your employer terminate, lay-off or alter job titles to current staff? Are you going to make one or multiple individuals become unemployed? If you sever someone's only source of income, how will they react to that?
- Joined
- May 30, 2006
- Messages
- 347
- Reaction score
- 11
I worked at a place where 7-8 techs, 2-3 volunteers, 1-2 interns (sometimes none), and only ONE pharmacist on duty.
I think the question is... Are these tech well-trained? If not, then, you should spend some time train your techs so that they know what they are doing and not giving you too much burdens. Upgrade the system to eliminate med errors may be another option to consider.
Good luck...
I think the question is... Are these tech well-trained? If not, then, you should spend some time train your techs so that they know what they are doing and not giving you too much burdens. Upgrade the system to eliminate med errors may be another option to consider.
Good luck...
It's 2:1 for NY, but interns and "cashiers" don't count. So if somebody is at the register and drive-up, they aren't counting against your tech total, even though they are certainly going to do tech work throughout the day.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2013
- Messages
- 47
- Reaction score
- 8
[QUOTE="NateRobinson, post: 15987061, member: 184569"]Lol, wow. What a joke of a post. If I had 100 pharmacy technicians I would jump and scream for joy. Screw having another rph, what do they really contribute besides helping me check? I can do that myself. Anyone with 3/4 of a normal brain can supervise employees around them, especially in the confines of a small pharmacy.
My store does 700 a day, and we have 2 RPhs at all times. If you took that rph away but gave me 4 techs to continuously man the register, count and fill at all times and get phone calls, I would be the happiest guy in the world.[/QUOTE]
So, how many rxs you think you can verify by yourself without risking your license, given you are sufficiently staffed by enough techs and you are only performing rph duty i.e. verifying rx/ counseling/ answering doctors' calls etc.?
My store does 700 a day, and we have 2 RPhs at all times. If you took that rph away but gave me 4 techs to continuously man the register, count and fill at all times and get phone calls, I would be the happiest guy in the world.[/QUOTE]
So, how many rxs you think you can verify by yourself without risking your license, given you are sufficiently staffed by enough techs and you are only performing rph duty i.e. verifying rx/ counseling/ answering doctors' calls etc.?
