check out the comments...
http://www.pharmacyweek.com/job_see...lts_question_id=2277&filter_by=&survey_id=705
interesting.
http://www.pharmacyweek.com/job_see...lts_question_id=2277&filter_by=&survey_id=705
interesting.
the value of pharm d
- Thread starter xml2
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,342
- Reaction score
- 73
It sounds like everyone has a complaint!
I wonder who was interviewed? (mostly RPhs
)
I wonder who was interviewed? (mostly RPhs
)
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,389
- Reaction score
- 12
It sounds like everyone has a complaint!
I wonder who was interviewed? (mostly RPhs
The survey brought up something I've been thinking about since starting my internship. At first, I was curious about what people's degrees were, but I figured the question would go over badly so I didn't ask. Now I realize that it doesn't matter. I've worked with kick-ass BPharms who blow their PharmD colleagues out of the water and vice versa. I think that's one of the valuable lessons I've learned this summer.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2005
- Messages
- 246
- Reaction score
- 1
I realize that most people on this board already realize this (so I'm stating the obvious), but it's not surprising that a lot of BPharm's are kick ass and blow some PharmD's out of the water... Experience says a lot!!! I am sure that it will take me several years of working as an inexperienced PharmD to measure up to an experienced BPharm!! Agreed?
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 698
- Reaction score
- 6
i agree with many, if not all, of the comments!
i do feel that my degree has less "value" than those who went back to school post-grad.
i don't care what degree you hold...if you're not competent, effecient and professional....what does it matter?
ps - as a NY pharmacist, i am an RPh and a PharmD. the RPh is conferred to me by the state of NY, the PharmD by my college.
i do feel that my degree has less "value" than those who went back to school post-grad.
i don't care what degree you hold...if you're not competent, effecient and professional....what does it matter?
ps - as a NY pharmacist, i am an RPh and a PharmD. the RPh is conferred to me by the state of NY, the PharmD by my college.
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Messages
- 407
- Reaction score
- 1
It sounds like everyone has a complaint!
I wonder who was interviewed? (mostly RPhs
all the comments were extremely negative. I didn't even bother to read them all. One person even said PharmD after only 3 years of school!
"It has trashed the status of a doctorate degree. It is deceiving to call "Drs" with the level of training that current programs give to the graduates. A "doctor" after a THREE years of school?? (the lenght of some of those programs) "
Someone's a little misinformed about the total length....I hope their not a pharmacist
I think this is a ridiculous poll. The n=354 (very, very small).
The PharmD degree was decided upon by the ACPE after 10 (ten - yes TEN) years of comments in which it became the uniform entry degree in 2000.
Now - think of how many graduates have become PharmD's since 2000 - then think about the n. The school I graduated from has produced at least 700 graduates since 2000 alone & that is one school only. The statistical significance of this poll is nill.
This is one of the worst examples of poor "studies" ever!!!
The poll means nothing - absolutely NOTHING at all.
The PharmD degree is the entry level for many, many reasons - most of which many of you have no reason for understanding the reasoning and very little is reflected in the comments or questions asked (the old - ask the question in the manner you want the question answered.....).
But - watch out. The same thing is happening in being able to participate in MTM in outpt settings. You limit yourself when you limit your opportunities for education & advancement.
The PharmD degree was decided upon by the ACPE after 10 (ten - yes TEN) years of comments in which it became the uniform entry degree in 2000.
Now - think of how many graduates have become PharmD's since 2000 - then think about the n. The school I graduated from has produced at least 700 graduates since 2000 alone & that is one school only. The statistical significance of this poll is nill.
This is one of the worst examples of poor "studies" ever!!!
The poll means nothing - absolutely NOTHING at all.
The PharmD degree is the entry level for many, many reasons - most of which many of you have no reason for understanding the reasoning and very little is reflected in the comments or questions asked (the old - ask the question in the manner you want the question answered.....).
But - watch out. The same thing is happening in being able to participate in MTM in outpt settings. You limit yourself when you limit your opportunities for education & advancement.
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,498
- Reaction score
- 1,687
This poll is pure unadulterated Bull Feathers...... Here is the truth:
1) When the switchover occurred in 2000, there was one year with no graduates. That was seven years ago.
2) People do not want to practice in a retail setting, not because of their degree, but because of the stress of the retail setting.
3) As a BSc, Temple University School of Pharmacy, 1982 I can categorically say the PharmD is required. Drugs are more powerful, there are more interactions and the clinical skills brought to bear by a PharmD are needed.
4) Anyone who thinks there is no need to have clinical skills in the retail setting is an idiot, who should turn in their spatula.....
The shortage of pharmacists has nothing to do with PharmD degree with one possible exception, there are so many more options available to todays pharmacists, the old standard areas of practice, community and hospital are suffering because grads are choosing areas like Drug Information, Hospice, Residencies and mail order that were not available 25 years ago.
Also, as pointed out the small sample is silly. CVS and Walgreens employee probably close to 30,000 pharmacists that is not even 1% of their small total.
1) When the switchover occurred in 2000, there was one year with no graduates. That was seven years ago.
2) People do not want to practice in a retail setting, not because of their degree, but because of the stress of the retail setting.
3) As a BSc, Temple University School of Pharmacy, 1982 I can categorically say the PharmD is required. Drugs are more powerful, there are more interactions and the clinical skills brought to bear by a PharmD are needed.
4) Anyone who thinks there is no need to have clinical skills in the retail setting is an idiot, who should turn in their spatula.....
The shortage of pharmacists has nothing to do with PharmD degree with one possible exception, there are so many more options available to todays pharmacists, the old standard areas of practice, community and hospital are suffering because grads are choosing areas like Drug Information, Hospice, Residencies and mail order that were not available 25 years ago.
Also, as pointed out the small sample is silly. CVS and Walgreens employee probably close to 30,000 pharmacists that is not even 1% of their small total.
I'd agree with everything you said, except there were graduates in 2000 - if they entered with the BS, they graduated with the BS, after that they were all PharmDs. Many, many schools have been PharmDs for decades.
Aside from that - this is completely correct!!!
What in heaven's name could have been the purpose for this nonsensical poll & its a poor reflection on the publication that it was accepted for publication in the first place.
One of the first & foremost things a pharmacist should learn is how to critically evaluate published material. I agree - this is hogwash.
no chance we should just doctor the bscs into Pharm.D. status. Don't get me wrong, there is considerable respect for their hard work and experience, but they didn't go to school for 4 years, nor did they have as many drugs to study. Likewise, their NAPLEX was much easier, and not clinical. Moreover, the competitiveness of pharmacy school wasn't the same, nor were the minds that taught it.
Experience is great but I am sure I will find many Bsc Rph's that would learn many new things if they went for their Pharm.D. Not to discredit these pharmacists.
Experience is great but I am sure I will find many Bsc Rph's that would learn many new things if they went for their Pharm.D. Not to discredit these pharmacists.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,389
- Reaction score
- 12
I think the poll (even in light of its low 'n') might show that there is some amount of conflict between the holders of two degrees in the profession. As I said in an earlier post, I thought better of asking anyone which degree they attained since it's obviously irrelevant with respect to degree of competence.
I will admit, however, that my ignorant, newbie mind gave the idea of "BPharm is less than PharmD" some credence. I think the opinion of some of the people who answered the poll said that my unfounded opinion was either being expressed openly or was implied by the actions of new grads.
The information in this poll reminded me that it's important that we respect our colleagues for what they actually do and not for whatever academic credentials they may have. That applies to established practitioners as well as to new grads and interns. I, too, discount the importance of the poll itself, but it had a positive impact on the reformation of my own opinions.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 4,316
- Reaction score
- 47
I think you're all making some very interesting points! However, there is some thought out there that the education provided in a PharmD program is lacking. What do you all think about the possibility of required residencies? I believe the proposal (which is supported by ASHP) would require a residency by 2020 for anyone involved in direct patient care.
I personally don't agree with the idea...I think if graduates are indeed unqualified, then something should be done to fix the program rather than slap on a year or two of additional training. I'm curious to hear what you all think though!
p.s. alwaystired, I believe that comment was referring to the accelerated 3-year programs which are availale
I think you're all making some very interesting points! However, there is some thought out there that the education provided in a PharmD program is lacking. What do you all think about the possibility of required residencies? I believe the proposal (which is supported by ASHP) would require a residency by 2020 for anyone involved in direct patient care.
I personally don't agree with the idea...I think if graduates are indeed unqualified, then something should be done to fix the program rather than slap on a year or two of additional training. I'm curious to hear what you all think though!
p.s. alwaystired, I believe that comment was referring to the accelerated 3-year programs which are availale
The current discussions underway across the country (which you can read about in the ASHP journal) is not to require residencies - because even a pharmacist who finishes a residency can be absolutely clueless! Rather, they are looking at requiring a set of board certifications before actually getting involved with extensive protocols which might incorporate the prescribing & altering the dosing of medication within the protocol parameters.
As pharmacists, currently, we do direct patient care every day.
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,424
- Reaction score
- 3
I think you're all making some very interesting points! However, there is some thought out there that the education provided in a PharmD program is lacking. What do you all think about the possibility of required residencies? I believe the proposal (which is supported by ASHP) would require a residency by 2020 for anyone involved in direct patient care.
I personally don't agree with the idea...I think if graduates are indeed unqualified, then something should be done to fix the program rather than slap on a year or two of additional training. I'm curious to hear what you all think though!
p.s. alwaystired, I believe that comment was referring to the accelerated 3-year programs which are availale
I believe the proposal was actually published by the American College of Clinical Pharmacy in 2006, I am not sure if at some point ASHP endorsed this Position Statement or not. I will post the link for anyone who wishes to review the document:
http://www.accp.com/position/paper013.pdf
I am a proponent of post-graduate training, but I am biased, as I am a current pharmacy resident.
In regard to the survey, I think there is some truth in a lot of the comments. However, I would have liked to see the qualifications of the individuals making the comments so I had a little more perspective (Reading them, I perhaps ignorantly assumed most were from BPharm degree holders, this may not be true).
I'd agree with you wholeheartedly the trend for future pharmacists will be residency training with a required second year for specialties - onc, neonatal, etc..
However, I was referring to CURRENT standards of practice, at least in CA which does indeed limit some practices to only those who are qualified to provide them. This, I think frightens some people. In CA, Collaborative Drug Therapy Management (CDTM) is a complicated & evolving provision within our B&P codes over the last 3 decades. This has allowed the scope of practice of a pharmacist in CA to be as broad as any state & allows pharmacists to perform not just "traditional" functions, but more sophisticated functions - all under CDT agreements - which are as varied as there are groups which write them.
However, CURRENTLY there are two methods of determining special qualifications - hospital & non-hospital practice. In a hospital, there must be competencies in place which allow pharmacists to practice in a particular setting (critical care, mental health, ER, etc..). In the ambulatory setting, the CA board is still clarifying the wording on pending legislation. However, it will be something like "A) successfully completed clinical residency training or B) demonstrated clinical competency in direct patient care delivery". This does not mean that only residency trained pharmacists will be able to perform these functions, nor does it mean only PharmD's can.
As a matter of fact, we have many ambulatory CDTM services in place which require pharmacists to take ASHP or APhA accredited training, without which, you cannot perform these functions - EC, immunizations, travel medications, Seroquel management & a few "out there" waiting to be finalized. None of these trainings require a residency - they require the pharmacist to be licensed - the degree is irrelevant.
So - yes....by 2020....pharmacy education will change. However, that won't make what you are getting now obsolete - unless you choose to remain exactly where you are & not get any further training. You won't have to go back to do a residency, but you'll have to go forward & get training & be able to demonstrate competency through testing methods to document you know what you're supposed to know. (One of the finest neonatal ICU pharmacists I know has a BS in pharmacy from about 1970 & she knows far more than I ever will in that field!!). The manner & form these trainings & testings will change and evolve over time. But they are absolutely necessary both for prescribers to trust & rely on us AND for the safety of patients.
That's why these "polls" are so ridiculous. I'm certainly not one of the first PharmDs from my school, but if I had stopped learning & developing my clinical skills at the time I graduated in 1977 - I'd be no better than the technicians I supervise.
Likewise - be humble when you graduate! Your PharmD buys you a ticket to a lifetime of education. It does not make you a better pharmacist than that person who worked the shift before you or works in a different unit than you or graduated in 1997 or 1985 from a school who didn't convert their BS degrees to PharmDs until 2000. Believe me - that pharmacist knows at least as much as you & probably ever so much more - particularly when you are a new grad.
This discussion about degree differences between BS & PharmDs really does need to stop. It might have been relevant in 1985 when the concept of a consistent entry level degree was being discussed. But, it has no place in 2007 when the EDUCATION of all pharmacists has been consistent for many many years - it is only the degree change which took place in 2000. The educational changes took place at least 5 years previous to that, if any changes were required at all - & many schools already complied. But, in some schools, it took a few years because degree changes had to go through state legislature changes to allow it to occur.
The truth is that the Pharm.D. was offered by a handful of institutions in the early '70s. None of the Bsc pharmacists alike complained about the Pharm.D. status at that time. Today, as pharmacy is one of the hottest professions offering excellent wages and job opportunities, some Bsc pharmacists all of a sudden want equal recognition and authmatic fathering into the Pharm.D. degree. How fair is that? I know many pharmacists who graduated from the 70's who got a Pharm.D. The opportunity was available even at that stage of time.
You're wrong on a number of points. There was HEATED debate for 15 years about the BS/PharmD entry level degree - I'm sure Old Timer remembers those days. Sadly - job opportunities were much better in the 80s than they are today unless you have a tremendous amount of motivation & direction.
Nobody wants to be grandfathered nor needs to be. Both degrees are equally recognized & equally respected. If you don't that is your problem. I'm a PharmD & I respect my BS colleagues tremendously. Unfortunately, there are some very narrow minded folks in the business who do not acknowledge the educational equivalency. Those schools which changed from BS to PharmD did not change their curriculum in one year.
The fact is - both BS & PharmD graduates can sit for all state board exams in all states & have equal opportunity to complete all postgraduate training available. All pharmacists who have received their degrees and have passed their licensing tests deserve respect. In my state - CA - which, granted was the first in the nation to "reinstitute" the PharmD (did you know it was a very, very old degree - much older than the BS???) - we value all licensed pharmacists & each one is able to take whatever post-graduate training which is available.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 7,745
- Reaction score
- 55
no, they really are looking at requiring a residency for all graduates according to ACCP and ASHP.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 4,316
- Reaction score
- 47
Actually, it is a current discussion.
And I think it has a lot to say about what our educational programs are currently providing. I don't want to offend current/past/future residents; I think they can be wonderful experiences and provide for great specialized post-graduate training.
As you can read in the position paper which Priapism posted a link to (above), ACCP makes the assumption that: "contemporary doctor of pharmacy curricula, although more clinically intense than previous 5-year professional baccalaureate degree programs, do not produce graduates with the ability levels necessary to manage complex drug therapy."
Doesn't that statement surprise anyone else? Is the key word in that statement "complex" drug therapy?! Am I to presume then, that a PharmD graduate is able to manage drug therapy, as long as it isn't "complex"?!?
They then go on to say that "it is likely that the demands of drug therapy management, evidence-based therapeutic decision making, and expansion of pharmacists practice roles will outpace innovations in pharmacy education". So basically...there's no way for a PharmD program to keep up, and a post-grad residency would be required of everyone.
I just personally don't see how this is the answer to the "problem" if there is indeed one to begin with. And from a logistical standpoint, I'm not sure it will even be possible to provide every post-graduate with a quality residency to begin with. How many of the rotation sites during your 4th year would you have been satisfied doing a 1 or 2-year residency at?
The concept of a required residency (whether it comes to fruition or not), mostly just interests me because it implies that there is something lacking in our PharmD programs. So shouldn't we concentrate on figuring out why this is? or if it's even true?
yeah - but aren't those requirements for 2020 or something??? Have you seen anythng more recent???
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,406
- Reaction score
- 6
It is unbelievable... You only have 91 posts!!! I swear I read more than 91 of your posts!!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 698
- Reaction score
- 6
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 2
That poll was posted on www.PharmacyOneSource.com, which is a community of mostly health-system pharmacists and pharmacy directors.
Drug Topics had a similar article with a similar poll:
http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=366110
~meg
Drug Topics had a similar article with a similar poll:
http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=366110
~meg
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2006
- Messages
- 4,316
- Reaction score
- 47
Haha! That's only because I complimented your (or probably your wife's) good taste in kitchen decor.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,406
- Reaction score
- 6
Haha! That's only because I complimented your (or probably your wife's) good taste in kitchen decor.
Heck..that's worth 5 posts..
We were driving through Bangor, Maine over the weekend and saw the most beautiful piece of granite ever....the color was aqua green with some red tint..and white with some brownish color to it. It was unique. I should've taken a picture of it.
Wow. Just wow. I read about half of the comments. Any chance they are all from bitter pharmacists with just a bachelors degree? They all seem anger and very uninformed, and just plain wrong to boot. Specifically they claim that the extra year of pharmacy school is of no benefit whatsoever. Right, sure, that extra year we just sat around and learned nothing.
I furthermore like the comment to revert back to a BS degree, as that would help end the shortage of pharmacists. Uh, no, no it would not. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Also, I am dissapointed when I hear pharmacists say that the clinical skills gained in the PharmD program are unnecessary for retail work. I bring my clinical knowledge (what little I have) and all my experiences from non-retail work, and it makes me a much better pharmacist in the retail setting. I can take discharge orders, look at the drugs, and have a very good idea of what al was going on at the hospital and everything I say to the patient from then on out is going to be guided by my previous, clinical experience.
I furthermore like the comment to revert back to a BS degree, as that would help end the shortage of pharmacists. Uh, no, no it would not. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Also, I am dissapointed when I hear pharmacists say that the clinical skills gained in the PharmD program are unnecessary for retail work. I bring my clinical knowledge (what little I have) and all my experiences from non-retail work, and it makes me a much better pharmacist in the retail setting. I can take discharge orders, look at the drugs, and have a very good idea of what al was going on at the hospital and everything I say to the patient from then on out is going to be guided by my previous, clinical experience.
I personally disagree. I respect your opinion, and see your point, but I disagree. Why? The benefits of a residency allow for much deeper understanding of meds, specifically a residency program also for individual tailoring of a stunent's learning process. They can pair with a mentor, address their specific needs, challenges, and work on what exactly the student needs/wants. I see achieving this same amount of custom learning, across every student in a school's program too difficult to achieve.
With regard to the logistics, you're right, it would be very hard to find a quality residency for each student. It would take much time, discussion and effort, but I think it would be worth it.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 7,745
- Reaction score
- 55
pharmacy week should never be taken seriously...no matter what field you go into, you will find disgruntled employees that shouldn't have gone into the field in the first place.
your second post is pure pie in the sky thinking. Have you completed a residency?
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 698
- Reaction score
- 6
nope, i'm not a bitter pharmacist with a bachelor's degree. i am a bitter pharmd. and they only reason i don't totally devalue the extra year is that i spent it on rotations and learned more there than i ever did in a classroom.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
If you do not have a PharmD you have nothing!!!!
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2004
- Messages
- 4,576
- Reaction score
- 339
That I believe is the whole value of the PharmD degree. The most beneficial year is the last year of rotations. Experience is the best teacher. You can memorize all the books and power point slides in the world and still be an idiot as a Pharmacist if you can not apply the knowledge.
It is rather pointless to argue which is better a BS in Pharmacy or a PharmD. I believe its been 9 years since most schools switched to PharmD. Experience is the best teacher. If I had a choice of who to hire, with all things being equal I would take a Pharmacist with a BS and 9 years of experience over a new grad with a PharmD.
The bottom line is we are all Pharmacists equally licensed by our State Boards of Pharmacy. The BS was the entry level degree and now the PharmD is. In practice I see no difference between the two. I certainly do not feel superior because I have a PharmD, after all what choice did I have?
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2007
- Messages
- 698
- Reaction score
- 6
i honestly don't care one way or the other. in NY [and pretty much anywhere else i can think of] you can't practice without being an RPh. that is, holding license and registration from the state.
Bingo! We have a winner with this answer! If you're licensed, you're good to go - everything else depends on what you have to offer. You can be the best PharmD in the world, but a horrible communicator & you won't get a job & if you do, you won't be successful.
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2005
- Messages
- 3,406
- Reaction score
- 6
oxymoronic statement... the best PharmD has to be a good communicator!!
picky, picky, picky.....you KNOW who I mean!
