"Training pharmacy technicians to administer immunizations"

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
. Before that, you were able to do a 5 year Bachelor of Science which did not really have the clinical focus the PharmD has.

I disagree with that statement, although admittedly, this probably differed by school and by year of graduation date. Certainly, there was a lot of clinical focus in my BS Pharmacy degree. Sure, not as much as if I'd went an extra year....so I had 1 semester of Pharmacotheraputics, instead of 2 semesters, but the pharmacotherapeutics was heavily clinical. We had 1 semester of rotations, instead of 1 year...the 5 week retail rotation wasn't overly clinical, but the 5 week hospital and 5 week "clinical" rotation were heavily clinical focused.
 
I disagree with that statement, although admittedly, this probably differed by school and by year of graduation date. Certainly, there was a lot of clinical focus in my BS Pharmacy degree. Sure, not as much as if I'd went an extra year....so I had 1 semester of Pharmacotheraputics, instead of 2 semesters, but the pharmacotherapeutics was heavily clinical. We had 1 semester of rotations, instead of 1 year...the 5 week retail rotation wasn't overly clinical, but the 5 week hospital and 5 week "clinical" rotation were heavily clinical focused.

Thank you for chiming in. For the most part, I oversimplified that for Kevin.Mero. As I've said in the past, I have met outstanding pharmacists with a BS in Pharmacy who graduated a century ago and have kept up with every advance in drug therapy, the same way that I have met others who don't know what they're dispensing in retail or hospital settings. The same goes for PharmD trained pharmacists, though.
Your profile shows you've been a member for 10 years. Were you in one of those last classes to graduate with a BS Pharmacy? I would expect that the closer you got to 2003, the more clinically focused curricula became. So I would agree with you that there probably was a large degree of variation. The following is speculation. I would imagine that one way to reduce that large degree of variation was to create the PharmD and make that the entry to practice degree.

The same way we can agree that not all PharmDs were created equal. It's not even about knowing everything. Most students finish school without that self-assurance, self-confidence that you can work through any clinical challenge that you come across. Huge degree of variation among PharmDs.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Your profile shows you've been a member for 10 years. Were you in one of those last classes to graduate with a BS Pharmacy? I would expect that the closer you got to 2003, the more clinically focused curricula became. So I would agree with you that there probably was a large degree of variation. The following is speculation. I would imagine that one way to reduce that large degree of variation was to create the PharmD and make that the entry to practice degree.

I would agree that is true. When I graduated, my school offered both the BS and the Pharm.D. With my class, a significant majority got the B.S.....at the time, it seemed like both degrees would be offered forever, so only people who were really planning to go into some clinical field when for the Pharm.D. Everyone planning to be a regular hospital or retail pharmacist got the B.S. Since the same professors were teaching both B.S. and Pharm.D., and a majority of the classes were taken by both groups, of course there would be lots of clinical focus in the B.S. Perhaps not all schools were like this. I graduated early 90's.
 
As I posted in another thread in regards to military pharm techs:
enlisted military pharmacy technicians (possibly crosstrained as corpsman and medics) have been administering vaccines for years.

These enlisted techs even administer vaccines to military personnel for some not so conventional things such as Yersinia pestis, bacillus anthracis, and variola.

They have been giving plague, anthrax, and smallpox vaccines in addition to the flu vaccine for quite some time now. This should be a non-issue for civilian techs giving the same if proper training is provided.
 
As I posted in another thread in regards to military pharm techs:


They have been giving plague, anthrax, and smallpox vaccines in addition to the flu vaccine for quite some time now. This should be a non-issue for civilian techs giving the same if proper training is provided.

Spoken like a man who doesn't know many civilian techs... 😉
 
As I posted in another thread in regards to military pharm techs:


They have been giving plague, anthrax, and smallpox vaccines in addition to the flu vaccine for quite some time now. This should be a non-issue for civilian techs giving the same if proper training is provided.

I’ll re-emphasize the cross-training. No enlisted military pharmacy tech is allowed to vaccinate UNLESS prior to being a military tech they were a combat medic (68W army) or corpsman with x-amount of years under that title. You cannot go to a pharmacy on a base just to get a “shot” by a tech it has to be by a medic. If the tech happens to be medic qualified before becoming a tech (and no one else is available) then they may be given the green-light.

To add, I wouldn’t imagine civilian training being to the same standards for a tech as in the military. Although it’s inticing to go out in the field for couple of weeks and have someone slit a pigs artery while having to catch it in full gear, treat it, then possibly administer a shot ( as you can imagine) I wouldn’t want to work with a tech who’s mentality may be less than par as required in other jobs (such as military or licensed professionals). Many techs could, but many could not. It’s the “could-nots” that would make me worry.
 
You raise many great points and I am in no position to dispute anything you have said. Bottom line though is techs are going to vaccinate, Tech-Check-Tech will expand, more BOP's will let Techs serve, and the remote, Tech-only Pharmacies are here. Someone has to assume responsibility, someone has to step-up, what can the profession do, and who is going to lead?
hope they are prepared to deal with more errors
 
I'm 100% against this, tech-check-tech, tech only pharmacies, and anything else that gives away pharmacist duties to technicians.

Technicians operate under your license, so you are the one who takes the fall if they make a mistake. Your employer is passing this burden onto you by lobbying for increased tech responsibilities.

The end goal isn't better patient care or safety. Your employer doesn't care about freeing you up for unpaid "clinical responsibilities." That's the lie they tell you knowing your heart will skip a beat at the prospect of calling yourself a clinical pharmacist.

The end goal is to eliminate you. They would have one pharmacist supervise 100 technicians in a warehouse if they could get away with it.

Tech - check - tech is the much bigger threat and is already eliminating pharmacist positions in a lot of hospitals and hospital-like environments. Honestly the only reason pharmacists even exist is because the government forces CVS, riteaid, wags ect to have them. I welcome these new events that eliminate pharmacist jobs. Pharmacists are WAY over paid and it's causing a lot of greedy money only people to enter the profession. I would love to see the pharmacist unemployment rate go up a lot and pay to plummet to around 40,000 USD a year for a pharmacist. Then you wouldn't have all the greedy, degenerate students entering pharmacy in such great numbers.

This is a very exciting time to be watching the pharmacy market. I can't wait to see the pay fall and the large number of greedy pharmacists being unemployed. They made their bed engaging in a get-rich-quick scheme going to pharmacy school now they should sleep in it.
 
Tech - check - tech is the much bigger threat and is already eliminating pharmacist positions in a lot of hospitals and hospital-like environments. Honestly the only reason pharmacists even exist is because the government forces CVS, riteaid, wags ect to have them. I welcome these new events that eliminate pharmacist jobs. Pharmacists are WAY over paid and it's causing a lot of greedy money only people to enter the profession. I would love to see the pharmacist unemployment rate go up a lot and pay to plummet to around 40,000 USD a year for a pharmacist. Then you wouldn't have all the greedy, degenerate students entering pharmacy in such great numbers.

This is a very exciting time to be watching the pharmacy market. I can't wait to see the pay fall and the large number of greedy pharmacists being unemployed. They made their bed engaging in a get-rich-quick scheme going to pharmacy school now they should sleep in it.

As we get closer to the year 2020 we may very well begin to see the unemployment rate for Pharmacists start to really rise. Lots can happen between now and then but I'm guessing we're going to be seeing a lot more new grad PharmD's, esp. those without a residency, not being able to find meaningful employment.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
As we get closer to the year 2020 we may very well begin to see the unemployment rate for Pharmacists start to really rise. Lots can happen between now and then but I'm guessing we're going to be seeing a lot more new grad PharmD's, esp. those without a residency, not being able to find meaningful employment.

You should check out ASHP's website. Apparently, they're creating/promoting pharmacotherapy pharmacy technicians and medication history technicians.
 
You should check out ASHP's website. Apparently, they're creating/promoting pharmacotherapy pharmacy technicians and medication history technicians.

I don't even have to go that far to see the new Tech titles, we're seeing the following every day. Medication Reconciliation Technician, Pharmacy-Consumer Medication Coordinator, Quality Outcomes Specialist, Medicare Clinical Programs Coordinator, Formulary Operations Specialist, Medication Assistance Program - Resource Specialist, Clinical Operations Specialist, Clinical Client Services Coordinator, Patient Care Coord, Specialty Pharmacy.

If you like what organized leadership did for Pharmacists just wait until they get done with the Techs!!
 
I don't even have to go that far to see the new Tech titles, we're seeing the following every day. Medication Reconciliation Technician, Pharmacy-Consumer Medication Coordinator, Quality Outcomes Specialist, Medicare Clinical Programs Coordinator, Formulary Operations Specialist, Medication Assistance Program - Resource Specialist, Clinical Operations Specialist, Clinical Client Services Coordinator, Patient Care Coord, Specialty Pharmacy.

If you like what organized leadership did for Pharmacists just wait until they get done with the Techs!!

Those are all administrative duties which involve several skills, sure, but none of those titles requires clinical judgment. If they did, then a pharmacist license would be required. Food for thought...
 
Med rec techs are actually a very good thing to have. Nurses are notoriously poor at this, and many institutions cannot justify paying a pharmacist to handle this role. A good tech can be very helpful in this role. I agree with @Apotheker2015 that using technicians in these administrative roles makes sense. It grants technicians an actual career pathway, which can help retain your more talented employees. They just should not have a role where any sort of clinical judgement is required because that requires a level of training that you'll never get out of a technician program.
 
In the retail setting techs should stick to answering phones, ringing out customers, checking out dates, and cleaning. Nothing more. Expand the role and you will get what you pay for.
 
I work in a tech only satellite pharmacy in Texas, I work in the OR managing all the medications for all of our surgical cases, of course I always have a pharmacist that I can phone for any dosing questions since I get a new batch of resident anesthesiologists every month that will occasionally try and ask me about IV antibiotic dosing. As far as my job goes though I am very independent and check all of my work myself.

I totally get what someone said about A, B, C rated technicians, I certainly have worked with technicians I wouldn't trust to run a single flavor snow-cone stand, but there are ones out there that many of you would probably trust to do many more advanced things because you know they will draw the line at something they can or can't make a judgement call about. I've seen the PTCB is extending their certification now to include a sterile compounding certification option, and I think some things like this would be good to have that are harder to attain than say just a regular CPhT license.

I haven't read anything about the vaccine administration so this is the first I've read about it, but I think it would be an awesome thing to learn to help out in the pharmacy. I understand some of you guys are concerned about job security with more and more responsibilities going into the hands of the technician, but there isn't much you can do about that. In the early tech-check-tech states the technicians actually had a higher accuracy rate than pharmacists at 99.99% accuracy versus pharmacists at 99.98% (huge difference, I know). I've always been supportive of things that increase the viability, with proper training, of the technician role, but to think that pharmacists jobs are going to be thinned because of this is a poor assumption, at least this early on in the process. I was a big fan of reading that the PTCB is going to require a certificate program course before becoming eligible to take the PTCB exam, this could help increase the quality of some technicians. I myself was one that took the exam completely self-study, but I was probably one of the rare people who actually learns and comprehends material exceptionally quick. Also I'm starting pharmacy school next fall anyways so it's definitely been a field I've enjoyed working and learning in.

I do think eventually you might start seeing completely tech run retail pharmacies that maybe have a pharmacist that remotes in to manage a few number of locations and answer the clinical questions. This would definitely be something I would worry about as a pharmacist, but it would be many years away before anything like that would even be considered I think, especially considering the infancy of the tech-check-tech policies being implemented. As someone going into pharmacy school myself these things have been in the back of my mind, but I honestly think it will be a long time before drastic things that would actually cut pharmacists jobs will come in to play. The technician side of me is also excited because it gives us an opportunity to learn more, become more helpful, and potentially make a technician a career that isn't half bad.
 
, especially considering the infancy of the tech-check-tech policies being implemented.

Infancy? Tech-check-tech has been around since at least the early 90's, and probably way before that in certain areas of the country. I don't see it expanding any more than it already has, because if it were going to expand anymore, it already would have.
 
Infancy? Tech-check-tech has been around since at least the early 90's, and probably way before that in certain areas of the country. I don't see it expanding any more than it already has, because if it were going to expand anymore, it already would have.

Relative to everything else, absolutely it's in its infancy, have you seen how slow our government works? I mean pot was first (re)legalized in the 90's and that's still gaining momentum and will eventually be legal everywhere. TcT will eventually spread too especially since this can have large impacts in profit margins.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Relative to everything else, absolutely it's in its infancy, have you seen how slow our government works? I mean pot was first (re)legalized in the 90's and that's still gaining momentum and will eventually be legal everywhere. TcT will eventually spread too especially since this can have large impacts in profit margins.
This x 9999
 
Med rec techs are actually a very good thing to have. Nurses are notoriously poor at this, and many institutions cannot justify paying a pharmacist to handle this role. A good tech can be very helpful in this role. I agree with @Apotheker2015 that using technicians in these administrative roles makes sense. It grants technicians an actual career pathway, which can help retain your more talented employees. They just should not have a role where any sort of clinical judgement is required because that requires a level of training that you'll never get out of a technician program.

I am actually OK with medication history technicians; just not OK with medication reconciliation technicians. The latter requires clinical judgment. Medication history technicians are scribes. The same way you have stenographers in court rooms. They jot down verbatim everything the patient says. Then the pharmacist reconciles it.
To be fair to nurses, they're pulled in 25 different directions. Thus, the nature and pace of their work either causes them to rush through it and miss everything that's important or they're interrupted several times and then finally, they just rush through it - or variations of that. You get the idea.
For sure I have met a handful of technicians that were just a delight to work with. It was like they could read my mind. They were truly an extension of my arms. But anytime I've run into anyone like that, I've gotten that person to consider other options. Since then, most have advanced their careers. But those have been exceptions. They're not what my brain spits out when I hear the words "pharmacy technician".
 
I work in a tech only satellite pharmacy in Texas, I work in the OR managing all the medications for all of our surgical cases, of course I always have a pharmacist that I can phone for any dosing questions since I get a new batch of resident anesthesiologists every month that will occasionally try and ask me about IV antibiotic dosing. As far as my job goes though I am very independent and check all of my work myself.

I totally get what someone said about A, B, C rated technicians, I certainly have worked with technicians I wouldn't trust to run a single flavor snow-cone stand, but there are ones out there that many of you would probably trust to do many more advanced things because you know they will draw the line at something they can or can't make a judgement call about. I've seen the PTCB is extending their certification now to include a sterile compounding certification option, and I think some things like this would be good to have that are harder to attain than say just a regular CPhT license.

I haven't read anything about the vaccine administration so this is the first I've read about it, but I think it would be an awesome thing to learn to help out in the pharmacy. I understand some of you guys are concerned about job security with more and more responsibilities going into the hands of the technician, but there isn't much you can do about that. In the early tech-check-tech states the technicians actually had a higher accuracy rate than pharmacists at 99.99% accuracy versus pharmacists at 99.98% (huge difference, I know). I've always been supportive of things that increase the viability, with proper training, of the technician role, but to think that pharmacists jobs are going to be thinned because of this is a poor assumption, at least this early on in the process. I was a big fan of reading that the PTCB is going to require a certificate program course before becoming eligible to take the PTCB exam, this could help increase the quality of some technicians. I myself was one that took the exam completely self-study, but I was probably one of the rare people who actually learns and comprehends material exceptionally quick. Also I'm starting pharmacy school next fall anyways so it's definitely been a field I've enjoyed working and learning in.

I do think eventually you might start seeing completely tech run retail pharmacies that maybe have a pharmacist that remotes in to manage a few number of locations and answer the clinical questions. This would definitely be something I would worry about as a pharmacist, but it would be many years away before anything like that would even be considered I think, especially considering the infancy of the tech-check-tech policies being implemented. As someone going into pharmacy school myself these things have been in the back of my mind, but I honestly think it will be a long time before drastic things that would actually cut pharmacists jobs will come in to play. The technician side of me is also excited because it gives us an opportunity to learn more, become more helpful, and potentially make a technician a career that isn't half bad.

I could just tell from your writing that at some point, you would share you had gotten into pharmacy school. That puts you in a completely different category. You aren't the "sample size" technician most of us deal with. The first word in all of your sentences is capitalized. You are not someone who walks around simply talking about nothing all day. You think before you speak and choose carefully when you speak.
Would I consider overseeing a pharmacy where you are the only technician? Possibly. I would have to meet you and spend time with you. There are places where there is no other option but to resort to satellite pharmacies. It's either that or people can't get their medications. I get it. I just hope I am not around when that becomes a common choice you can't avoid.
 
Last edited:
I work in a tech only satellite pharmacy in Texas, I work in the OR managing all the medications for all of our surgical cases, of course I always have a pharmacist that I can phone for any dosing questions since I get a new batch of resident anesthesiologists every month that will occasionally try and ask me about IV antibiotic dosing. As far as my job goes though I am very independent and check all of my work myself.......

If I understand Texas board regs and your position, you are actually required to constantly supervised by a licensed pharmacist. I would argue with you that pharmacists can't do anything to change the trajectory of our profession.
 
I could just tell from your writing that at some point, you would share you had gotten into pharmacy school. That puts you in a completely different category. You aren't the "sample size" technician most of us deal with. The first word in all of your sentences is capitalized. You are not someone who walks around simply talking about nothing all day. You think before you speak and choose carefully when you speak.
Would I consider overseeing a pharmacy where you are the only technician? Possibly. I would have to meet you and spend time with you. There are places where there is no other option but to resort to satellite pharmacies. It's either that or people can't get their medications. I get it. I just hope I am not around when that becomes a common choice you can't avoid.

I'm certainly in agreement with your stance on this, I'm sure big chains looking to increase profit margins don't see it the same way. Trying to objectively view this from the pharmacist standpoint, I wouldn't want to just give significant responsibilities to someone I wasn't sure is capable of knowing where to draw the line between CPhT and PharmD and that I could trust them to run things with the same accuracy and expectations of a pharmacist. I appreciate your kind words too, and I understand myself that I am not the "average" technician and I know that if I held everyone to my standards and expectations mostly everyone would fail. I am hoping that some of the new educational requirements for technician training and certification in the future will increase the quality of these technicians because I'm sure all of you, myself included, have worked with techs that you're surprised put on their shoes correctly in the morning.
 

If I understand Texas board regs and your position, you are actually required to constantly supervised by a licensed pharmacist. I would argue with you that pharmacists can't do anything to change the trajectory of our profession.

Well in most situations I would say you're pretty correct, but there are some areas where the laws and rules do change. I can't site them because I've never cared enough to read the rules, but I can say that the TSBP has visited our two technician pharmacies multiple times and I've learned about the rules regarding them from their mouths.

To give you some context, we have two satellite pharmacies that are technician run, one of them is the main OR in the hospital and the other is a day surgery/minor procedure center that is in a building adjacent to our main hospital. Until the most recent visit by the TSBP the day surgery center was staffed by a single technician that distributed medications to the providers directly, the main OR was the same setup (except with more technicians) and with a staffed pharmacist, who was also the PIC of the day surgery center, available M-F. The most recent visit by the TSBP said that because of the classifications of the the types of surgery centers we had, day surgery and main OR, that a technician could not hand out medications at the day surgery center, but could in the main OR. The hospital then moved our main OR pharmacist that is only here M-F to the day surgery center and the technician is now in the main OR, with no pharmacist in the direct vicinity of the technicians. The TSBP verified this was legal and acceptable to them and their policies, and they said the main factor of the day surgery center was when the technicians are distributing medications to the providers, the technician cannot make the drug selection themself and hand it to the provider, but if we had for example a platter of different medications then the provider could grab the medication directly making their own selection of the medication. This was the issue that the TSBP took issue with and said was acceptable in one place and not another because of how the two surgery centers are classified according to the state.

To give you even more context, I myself am the technician that works Friday through Sunday. I am the only person, a technician, present in the main OR pharmacy. I do not compound anything directly, and refuse to when asked because I don't have a pharmacist, and surgeons have asked me to make things, especially right now with many of the the locals unavailable currently, like 0.25% bupiv w/epi 1:200,000. We have medication trays that are made up with all the medications most commonly needed, and I exchange and remake those trays between cases, during the week we have two technicians sign off on the trays, but at nights and weekends only one of us is here to sign them so we check them ourselves. I also hand out narcotics to the anesthesia providers for each case, record waste, and reconcile waste versus dose charted to maintain a complete and accurate narcotic log. I make myself available to the providers as well if they're in the middle of a case and need something then I will get them what they want and bring it directly to them in their OR room so they don't have leave or send someone to us. We do have compounded items that we use like dexmedetomidine 4mcg/mL in a 5mL syringe that is compounded by us, in bulk and under supervision in the IV room, and if there is an order that needs to be compounded and we don't have immediately available, then our job is to facilitate that process and ensure it goes smoothly. For example I would call our ICU pharmacist to verify the order, they would send the label down to the IV room, and I would call the pharmacist in the IV room to let them know it's a STAT OR order and I'll be down to either pick it up or have them tube it to me. The rest of my job just involves simple stuff like inventory management and expired med checks.

And before anyone says anything else I will tell you upfront too that the answer is yes, I am well aware that most hospitals have only omnicell/pyxis machines in their ORs and not a staffed pharmacy, and yes, my job is incredibly easy and especially with my Sat/Sun shifts which involve only urgent or emergent cases and not elective surgeries. I am however thankful and blessed to be in this role because it has been one the greatest, most interesting career experiences I've had. I've learned so much about the anesthesia medications, the job roles of the surgeons, anesthesiologists, anesthesia techs, surgical techs, OR nurses, and other support staff, and seeing everything come together has been an awesome experience. I also get quite a bit of downtime to study and work on homework which has been invaluable too.

Sorry for the wall of text, just thought you (everyone) might be curious of what goes on in one type of technician run pharmacy.
 
Well in most situations I would say you're pretty correct, but there are some areas where the laws and rules do change. I can't site them because I've never cared enough to read the rules, but I can say that the TSBP has visited our two technician pharmacies multiple times and I've learned about the ...........

I can't see anything wrong with that role if ultimately the physician is choosing their own drug. But its interesting your PIC did not catch this in advance. I would be careful in your role though because if a wrong drug is gets used (for whatever reason) blame may find itself on your doorstep. Had a position which supported a nursing home which used an omnicell. They were reluctant to use it and could never seem to get the control count right. Then the nurses would want us to sort out their errors.
 
I can't see anything wrong with that role if ultimately the physician is choosing their own drug. But its interesting your PIC did not catch this in advance. I would be careful in your role though because if a wrong drug is gets used (for whatever reason) blame may find itself on your doorstep. Had a position which supported a nursing home which used an omnicell. They were reluctant to use it and could never seem to get the control count right. Then the nurses would want us to sort out their errors.

The OR pharmacist that we have is PIC of the day surgery pharmacy because I guess of how our health system is set up that pharmacy in particular is a separate entity when compared the the main hospital's OR pharmacy which is technically a satellite of the hospitals primary pharmacy, we also have a third outpatient pharmacy which is also another entity altogether. The TSBP has reviewed the day surgery pharmacy before and never took issue with its setup previously, but it was until this last visit that their medication selection rule came into the light. The OR pharmacist we have isn't a manager (personnel) in anyway and is just considered a staff pharmacist that acts as PIC since the day surgery pharmacy legally requires a PIC as it's own pharmacy entity.

I understand your cautious approach, but since the TSBP has approved of our SOP in the main OR and it was only the day surgery center that was in fault, I think we're safe as far as legality goes. I am, of course, always careful in what I do here and I take my job very seriously, and I've gotten to the point where mistakes like selecting the wrong medication are things that I just don't do ever, when I was less experienced then maybe I made that type of error every once in a while, and thinking back it's been about 4 years since my last medication error which was in retail. I admit prior to working here and even hearing the TSBP talk about the OR pharmacy classifications that dictate slightly different things a tech may or may not do, I wouldn't have believed that a technician could work in a role like mine. In a hypothetical case of me handing out the wrong medication, I think more responsibility lies in the hands of the nurse or provider that administers the medication during surgery to verify the medication before administering, but morally I would hold myself in equal blame too, but legally I think it falls on them.

With your situation it's a matter of proper training, I've worked with omnicell for a few years now, and I'm one of the few omnicell administrators in our health system. Omnicell works great with counts if people are doing everything correctly, I'm told the reason we have a staffed OR pharmacy is because the providers don't want to use omnicells either, but at some point they're going to calculate the costs and realize that ADC's will always be cheaper than constant staffing. Our nurses do a control cycle count here on the morning/evening shift change and the discrepancies are relatively low compared to the amount of transactions that take place.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I wish there were more techs like you. What the profession of pharmacy needs is people who care. Welcome to the world of CYA. Many people think MDs get sued the most, but that is not true. What is true is **** rolls down hill. I wonder if the PIC ever had a conversation with the docs to tell them they should double check what you give them. Hopefully you end up in a good position in a good organization when you graduate.
 
The OR pharmacist that we have is PIC of the day surgery pharmacy because I guess of how our health system is set up that pharmacy in particular is a separate entity when compared the the main hospital's OR pharmacy which is technically a satellite of the hospitals primary pharmacy, we also have a third outpatient pharmacy which is also another entity altogether. The TSBP has reviewed the day surgery pharmacy before and never took issue with its setup previously, but it was until this last visit that their medication selection rule came into the light. The OR pharmacist we have isn't a manager (personnel) in anyway and is just considered a staff pharmacist that acts as PIC since the day surgery pharmacy legally requires a PIC as it's own pharmacy entity.

I understand your cautious approach, but since the TSBP has approved of our SOP in the main OR and it was only the day surgery center that was in fault, I think we're safe as far as legality goes. I am, of course, always careful in what I do here and I take my job very seriously, and I've gotten to the point where mistakes like selecting the wrong medication are things that I just don't do ever, when I was less experienced then maybe I made that type of error every once in a while, and thinking back it's been about 4 years since my last medication error which was in retail. I admit prior to working here and even hearing the TSBP talk about the OR pharmacy classifications that dictate slightly different things a tech may or may not do, I wouldn't have believed that a technician could work in a role like mine. In a hypothetical case of me handing out the wrong medication, I think more responsibility lies in the hands of the nurse or provider that administers the medication during surgery to verify the medication before administering, but morally I would hold myself in equal blame too, but legally I think it falls on them.

With your situation it's a matter of proper training, I've worked with omnicell for a few years now, and I'm one of the few omnicell administrators in our health system. Omnicell works great with counts if people are doing everything correctly, I'm told the reason we have a staffed OR pharmacy is because the providers don't want to use omnicells either, but at some point they're going to calculate the costs and realize that ADC's will always be cheaper than constant staffing. Our nurses do a control cycle count here on the morning/evening shift change and the discrepancies are relatively low compared to the amount of transactions that take place.

Thank you for taking the time to share with us the specifics of your workflow at your position. Your experience there will be so useful to you through pharmacy school. You will see. Just the exposure to all the anesthesia meds. You will get two rushed lectures on anesthesia. Done. In addition, you've had to understand pharmacy law in order to make sense of the changes happening around you.
I am willing to bet $1 dollar that one of the reasons the choose to staff a pharmacy; instead of using ADS, is the tight control the pharmacy is able to have on the chain of custody of controlled medications. Most hospitals struggle with the chain of custody. You get nurses coming back from 4 days off, and returning some fentanyl they forgot they had in their pocket. It's never lisinopril, furosemide, tylenol. Most hospitals claim to have tight controls but are too proud and chicken to admit they don't. I saw that on every single one of my hospital based rotations.
Never let go of that job. That's your ticket to job security after you're done with school. Best of luck!
 
I don’t suppose I would mind a tech actually sticking the patient, assuming proper training and supervision. Perhaps eyes on supervision at all times. Would help out in flu clinics, etc. I’ve got shots from quite unqualified employees of doctor offices before...

Rouelle, I mean no disrespect. I have two eyes. How many do you have? 😉
I am just saying... every time it's my turn to give an immunization, I dread it because I have to watch over whoever ***** pharmacist I left in charge of the queue and I keep an eye on the counseling booths to make sure they're still going up there in a timely manner. So now we need a third eye to watch over an individual who has zero liability when he/she is giving shots to patients under a pharmacist's license?
As I've said before, I have no issue becoming an overqualified nurse. You know it'd be a breeze. Mail carrier? Sure, why not? If this is where this is headed.
 
Pharmacy technicians should have 0 clinical scope. They are not clinically trained professionals and are registered and employed to perform physical pharmacy task requiring no clinical judgement. Immunizing someone is a clinical activity. I strongly oppose pharmacy techs being able to inject vaccinations, especially if they will have 0 liability in the game.

THANK YOU! Emphasis on the level of clinical knowledge/judgment they come with; i.e., zero, and zero liability. Hell no.
 
The OR pharmacist we have isn't a manager (personnel) in anyway and is just considered a staff pharmacist that acts as PIC since the day surgery pharmacy legally requires a PIC as it's own pharmacy entity.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, previous to your change, you had a legal PIC, who never actually worked in the outpatient surgery? Talk about liability, I would never agree to be a PIC, in some place I didn't actually work. Regardless of whether or not your state board thinks it find and dandy. Of course, now the pharmacist is in the outpatient, and not the inpatient surgery. I understand the state board's rationale for the legality, but I still would not want to be the Director in Pharmacy, in charge of a pharmacy satellite that no pharmacist works in.

Because of your greater than normal responsibility as a technician, I would recommend having technician insurance. It's pretty cheap (last I heard, it was around $30/yr.) But, while I think you have a greater risk of being sued than a regular technician, I still think it's pretty unlikely that you would be sued (are more likely that the Director of Pharmacy would be sued.)
 
So, if I'm understanding you correctly, previous to your change, you had a legal PIC, who never actually worked in the outpatient surgery? Talk about liability, I would never agree to be a PIC, in some place I didn't actually work. Regardless of whether or not your state board thinks it find and dandy. Of course, now the pharmacist is in the outpatient, and not the inpatient surgery. I understand the state board's rationale for the legality, but I still would not want to be the Director in Pharmacy, in charge of a pharmacy satellite that no pharmacist works in.

Because of your greater than normal responsibility as a technician, I would recommend having technician insurance. It's pretty cheap (last I heard, it was around $30/yr.) But, while I think you have a greater risk of being sued than a regular technician, I still think it's pretty unlikely that you would be sued (are more likely that the Director of Pharmacy would be sued.)

The OR pharmacist that we have would spend the majority of the day elsewhere than in the pharmacy she was PIC in, but she did go over there to do some normal upkeep stuff, which I'm not sure what all that entails other than narcotic reconciliation.

There are a few interesting rules that have popped up because of TSBP visits and how our health system is organized. We have I think three total separate entity pharmacies in our system with outpatient surgery, inpatient hospital, and the retail/outpatient pharmacy, and the pharmacy staff can all float between the positions if necessary. There have also been some quirky rules that the TSBP informed us of that have changed some procedures. We have a non-sterile compounding tech and a nice lab for this, and this tech would make all the non-sterile compounded medications for both the inpatient and outpatient pharmacies until recently the TSBP said that the medications for the outpatient couldn't be compounded in the very nice lab we have because it was located in the inpatient pharmacy and not the outpatient. We then had to change the procedure where this tech physically walks over to the outpatient pharmacy and compounds in their area that isn't designed specifically for non-sterile preparations. My assumption is that these laws and policies of the TSBP weren't really designed around such an encompassing healthcare system and were more for independent, single function pharmacies, because some of these changes we have made are really just quirky technicality rules that make sense, but at the same time really don't make sense, especially in our specific applications.
 
THANK YOU! Emphasis on the level of clinical knowledge/judgment they come with; i.e., zero, and zero liability. Hell no.

I think this is the major caveat to the issue being discussed is the liability factor. I think that if it was set in a way that the pharmacist was not liable you guys wouldn't have a problem with technicians administering vaccines, assuming techs receive proper training. The technology available to us now in most pharmacies allows us to find out where in the process and who made a mistake(s). I think it's terribly stupid that a pharmacist correctly verifies a medication and when the technician hands it to the wrong person it's a ding against the pharmacist. I kind of poked around trying to research license revoking cases, and it appears that in the case of negligence there has to be malicious intent to warrant a revocation. I also believe that the employer is liable for any monetary lawsuits, and unable to collect from the employee was acting within their scope of duty. I know law is extremely convoluted and really just a gigantic migraine so I could be wrong or be misinterpreting legal terms and definitions.

It's one of those things that boils down to the fine print details of who's liable, the training, and quality control factors. I was talking to one of my nurses about this topic and her comment was that "you can train a monkey to give vaccines" haha.
 
I think this is the major caveat to the issue being discussed is the liability factor. I think that if it was set in a way that the pharmacist was not liable you guys wouldn't have a problem with technicians administering vaccines, assuming techs receive proper training. The technology available to us now in most pharmacies allows us to find out where in the process and who made a mistake(s). I think it's terribly stupid that a pharmacist correctly verifies a medication and when the technician hands it to the wrong person it's a ding against the pharmacist. I kind of poked around trying to research license revoking cases, and it appears that in the case of negligence there has to be malicious intent to warrant a revocation. I also believe that the employer is liable for any monetary lawsuits, and unable to collect from the employee was acting within their scope of duty. I know law is extremely convoluted and really just a gigantic migraine so I could be wrong or be misinterpreting legal terms and definitions.

It's one of those things that boils down to the fine print details of who's liable, the training, and quality control factors. I was talking to one of my nurses about this topic and her comment was that "you can train a monkey to give vaccines" haha.

Its more than a liability issue. Its a quality issue. Your typical retail tech is teen or twenty something without a college education (CVS actually advertises they will hire 16 year olds). Some started college, but couldn't pass a certain course. Most have no certificate or license. Many struggle with their responsibility in the pharmacy and exhibit very immature behavior. Many also have a careless attitude. I have seen the mistakes pharmacists make when administering vaccines i.e wrong diluent, wrong site of administration, inappropriate vaccine for patient (other healthcare professionals do these too). Now the suggestion of an individual without the skills, intelligence, and attitude would be a vaccine administrator, I would take the risk of the disease first.
 
Doctors have mid level creep...pharmacists now have tech creep...lol. This is sad but funny at the same time.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
We have a non-sterile compounding tech and a nice lab for this, and this tech would make all the non-sterile compounded medications for both the inpatient and outpatient pharmacies until recently the TSBP said that the medications for the outpatient couldn't be compounded in the very nice lab we have because it was located in the inpatient pharmacy and not the outpatient.

That is crazy, I can't imagine why the state board would have a problem with that. I can maybe see it from a federal stand-point, if the hospital is non-profit and the retail pharmacy is for profit....even then I think that would be easily remedied by having the for-profit pharmacy pay a rental fee to the non-profit pharmacy to use their compound room. But from the state board side which should be about quality not reimbursement issues, I can't imagine any reason why that would be a problem.

Doctors have mid level creep...pharmacists now have tech creep...lol. This is sad but funny at the same time.

Every other high paying medical profession has mid-level creep, so it's not surprising that it's starting to happen to pharmacy.