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.
