In addition to reviewing the position statement from ACCP that was posted last week, I would like for you to look at this 2015 vision statement
from the Joint Commission of Pharmacy Practitioners. Think about the
future of pharmacy practice. Where are we headed? Does it encourage and
excite you, or does it honestly make you a bit nervous to get away from some of our traditional roles?
Finally, I would like for you to visit the InstyMeds website and watch a video or two about their machine.
Lets talk about technology and robotics as it concerns our profession. Opportunity or threat?
59 comments:
I believe that pharmacy is headed in the right direction because I think that we as future pharmacist learn a lot of information that we need to be able to use. We also need to be able to help patients not only when they come in the pharmacy but also monitor their health through different services such as MTM's or any types of monitoring services that may be provided at different pharmacies. The changes will provide a different environment for pharmacists but I believe it is a step in the right direction.
Niko Harlambous
After watching the videos from InstyMed's website, I was initially terrified that this device would replace pharmacies. I imagined seeing them in malls and grocery stores, and being so convenient that the retail pharmacy would be obsolete. Then I thought about it and realized this probably will happen someday, but it’s going to be a looooong time.
As far as the present and immediate future, these devices will probably have the biggest impact on big chains. The fox news report indicated that it was great for emergency rooms, because their busiest times were at night, weekends, and holidays, when most independent pharmacies are closed. They wouldn’t have gotten the revenue anyway. I think this really brings to question the practicality of a 24-hr pharmacy.
I’ll be worried when there is a pharmacy sized robot that can scan and fill any prescription. This would do to pharmacy what Redbox did to video stores. But like I said this is not going to happen overnight like redbox, so there will be time to adapt if/when this does happen. It may allow pharmacies to evolve, as Christine Chen said in the last thread, “retail pharmacies may reform and look more like clinical pharmacy practices.”
I believe that pharmacy is heading in a very ambitious direction. Though I find it exciting that pharmacists will one day be able to expand their roles to more of a prescribing role, I personally get a little nervous thinking about it. I believe I might actually enjoy this future role but thinking about it now, makes me somewhat anxious and nervous.
About the topic of robotics, I feel that certain robotics have and will aid in the pharmacy role. For example, ScriptPro is a useful robotic system to help pharmacies count and label prescriptions, though it is not always accurate. This robotic system aids in situations where stores are busy and hinders when the medications are counted incorrectly. Personally, I found that though InstyMed was an amazing and innovative robotic system for the pharmacy world, I believe that it takes away from the Pharmacist-Patient interaction. This is hindering pharmacists from getting to know their patients and counsel them properly, as set out in OBRA 90. I believe this type of pharmacy discourages personal relationships and might hinder the pharmacy profession from reaching its future goal, which is becoming more involved in direct patient care.
Samantha Miller
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
Class of 2016
I believe that the future of pharmacy is very tentative and subject to change. With the growing needs of the health care system, I believe pharmacists are going to be utilized more for their expertise in Medication Therapy Management and diagnosing patients. Assisting physicians in managing patient health will provide the possibility of seeing many more patients and limiting the number of expensive readmissions to hospitals by chronic care patients. Also, acute care patients can receive guidance and care without driving all the way to the hospital and making appointments to see their physician. Simply put, I believe the future of pharmacy looks bright and vast with many new opportunities arising that will enhance the entire system of health care.
I am very excited for the future of Pharmacy. The different kinds of roles that we can play in the profession of Pharmacy amaze me. There are so many options: nuclear, oncological, pediatrics, academia... It only seems logical that our profession should be expanded as our education is expanding (BSPharm -> Pharm.D.). Furthermore, those of us who pursue residencies will be able to participate in rare roles played by pharmacists and perhaps create new roles for future pharmacists! There is no doubt in my mind that Pharmacists playing higher, authoritative roles in healthcare will continue to be a great influence in better patient care.
The Future of pharmacy is definitely one that is quickly growing and expanding day by day. Though it may be "scary" that things are changing so quickly, in my opinion, it is a great thing. New jobs for pharmacists are being reviled every day and pharmacist are no longer just thought of as people behind counters dispensing drugs. Even in the topic of pharmacists in the retail setting there are changes going on. On the subject of robots within the pharmacy, I have had the pleasure of working with one in my volunteer work and I think they are both good and bad. Robots are good because they can help the pharmacist dispense drugs that are dispensed very often, therefore giving the pharmacist more time to do other duties, however they are bad because they are technology, and like all technology, they are subject to malfunction and constant upkeep and can sometimes be more of a burden than helpful.
Regarding the role of technology in the Pharmacy profession, it can go both ways. It can help our work run more smoothly and it can also endanger our livelihood as in the case of the InstyMed machine.
In my family's store, we have a robotic counting machine that counts, fills and prints labels for the pharmacist to check. Although it does have a little hiccup here and there, overall, the machine reduces the workload and stress for everyone. My mother doesn't need to count pills that often after we purchased this robot. Therefore, it is an asset.
Going back to InstyMed, as it is right now with a limited amount of drugs that it handles, it's not that big of a threat to us. But as time goes by when its role expands into more drugs and different areas, the danger cleary is there.
I do believe the Future of Pharmacy is heading in the correct direction; however, with change it does seem a bit scary. Many pharmacy students seem to genuinely care about their future patients. The future of pharmacist seems to be heading in a wonderful direction that not only informs patients but allows the patient to understand what is going on so that in the end the prescriptions they are on or the medications they were prescribed will be most effective in solving their issues. The scary part of the future of pharmacist would definitely include systems such as "InstyMeds." However, as of right now this is no where near taking over a Pharmacist role. This does not mean that as a Pharmacy Student I am not bothered by this idea of taking away patient interaction but also as a patient who has been to the doctors and seen pharmacist I understand there will always be the need for face to face interaction and patients will overall want to see a pharmacist over a machine. This circumstance is similar to processed food versus home cooked meals. There are many individuals who love processed food, myself included; however, I will always be grateful for home cooked food and chiefs in a kitchen versus a processing plant. In conclusion, overall I am excited for the future of pharmacist; however, I do understand we all may be challenged with different technological advancements or changing in laws or regulations.
--Jennifer Jones
At first glance, I did feel that the InstyMed robot was a threat to pharmacist’s jobs. After considering it further, I don’t think that a robot could replace the job of a pharmacist but could be used as an asset. As it mentioned in the InstyMed video, I can see the benefit of having easy access to this machine in places like the ER or urgent care center where you may need your prescription filled quickly and at times during the hours most pharmacies are closed. I can also see how this robot could be a time saver in the pharmacy if it were filled with the most commonly used medications. However, the type and amount of medication that could be used in these machines is limited. How would it handle medications that need to be mixed and refrigerated or making sure that controlled substances were handled properly? From a business standpoint, I would want to know how expiration of medication was handled. I wouldn’t want to fill the machine with an expensive medication and then have it expire.
Most importantly, I would be concerned for the fact that the pharmacist’s main goal in filling and dispensing the medication is that it is the last point to catch any mistakes in the prescription, including whether it was written for the wrong medication, the wrong dose, the incorrect sig, drug interactions or for the wrong indication. It’s also the last opportunity to provide patient counseling.
The pharmacy profession has greatly been enriched over the past few decades with pharmacists playing a more active role in monitoring the well-being of their patients compared to pharmacists 50 years ago. However, from my experience working in my family's store for 14 years, I can attest to the fact that many patients unknowingly abuse the same drugs or similar drugs to treat their illness.
For example, a patient will see a specialist doctor where they are given a prescription for Lipitor 10 mg which they have to take twice a day but their family doctor gives them another prescription for Lipitor 10 mg which they only have to take once daily. So they get confuse and need a pharmacist to sort things out.
Because of this, the MTM service is greatly needed. If the compensation is fair and is paid as it should be, I will definately incorporate this as a new service in my pharmacy. This will be a win-win situation for all parties involved, including the government because the number of hospital visits due to drug abuse will hopefully decrease.
I agree with the earlier comments made about the expanding role of pharmacists in terms of being able to use our education to provide care. I think that is great for everyone involved. It benefits the patient and pharmacists feel they are using more skills.
In terms of robots they can go both ways. Some patients might prefer the quick vending machine thing. However, there are patients out there who might not like the idea of picking up their medication from a vending machine. Some patients might not trust technology with such an important aspect in their lives. Whenever, inventions and stuff like this comes out I think it is important to think about how our patients feel. Are the majority for or against it? That is an important fact to know as well as the other concerns.
After looking at the 2015 vision statement and watching the video about InstyMeds I was slightly concerned. In undergrad I worked at a bank and while I was there they were planning automated systems that would completely eliminate the tellers. Some customers even had certain bank accounts that prohibit them from seeing a teller and have to do everything electronically. Similar to redbox, this will give customers no reason to talk to be social. While a lot of people like this idea, many older people feel uncomfortable with it and therefore, the bank had to have a mix of both electronic machines and tellers. For some people, their only interactions with people are their trips to the bank, pharmacy, grocery store etc. and therefore even if things do become automated there will be people who want the social interaction. While this is the case, like tellers, pharmacists will be used. While InstyMeds is a convenient process and I was initially concerned, I don't actually think it will replace pharmacists and if it does it will be a long time from now.
While some technology can be threatening and overwhelming, I do appreciate robots and automatic counters. It can eliminate a lot of errors and make tech jobs easier and less stressful. Like anything else, technology is great in moderation.
I think the Pharmaceutical field is heading in the right direction because Pharmacists will now have a more patient-centered role. I believe when a Pharmacist is involved in a patients drug therapy, there will be a decrease in drug errors and an increase in patient compliance.
However, I do not think the InstyMed robot is a step in the right direction. Yes, the robot will make it more convenient for the patient, but I believe it will cause an increase in error. What if the machine dispenses the wrong medicine? What if a prescription requires a patient id? Will a patient be able to visit 2, 3 or even 10 of these machines to obtain the same medication? These questions need to be addressed before the InstryMed is made available to the public.
Niveen Abdel-Jaber
While I'm not against advances in technology such as this, I can't help but think of the elderly population who may have trouble adjusting to such drastic changes such as that of InstyMed. I'd be very interested to know, first of all, how the patient's insurance information is input into the system, because it can be difficult for a pharmacist or technician to put the information in, much less for an elderly person who may have difficulty seeing the small numbers on their insurance card. And would the patient know for sure if the prescription was run through their insurance? I know that they can use the phone to talk to someone about their insurance or copay, but I would much rather talk to someone in person than have to talk to them over the phone. I also wonder what happens if the person can't read the code on their print out or if they type in the wrong code. It also scares me a little that the lady in the video kept saying that if a wrong drug is pulled, the machine would "try again." I would think that the accuracy would be extremely high if it's a machine, but the video made it seem like there were a lot of mistakes. In addition, does the patient have a choice to use InstyMed, or can they go to their local pharmacy instead? I'm not completely opposed to the idea, but I still think there should be a live pharmacist there to double check the prescription and also to answer questions. I also think it is interesting that the website says the physician gives the patient the informational pamphlet and the prescription with the code on it. Does this mean that the physician or their assistant is the one who inputs the prescription? Because if that is the case, I'd imagine there would be a lot of errors without a pharmacist involved.
I think the 2015 vision of pharmacy is a great idea. However, 2015 is two years and a few months away. I have concerns as to what the actual plan of action is to follow through with this vision statement. Many things have to change in order for this idea to become a reality. There are many obstacles in the way that I think will be hard to overcome in just a few years. The InstyMed machine is one of these barriers. It seems to be a threat to the 2015 vision statement because it lowers the demand for pharmacists. I believe that we will be a very progressive generation of pharmacists, so it is up to us to become the leaders to put this plan into action and overcome these barriers. Eventually, it would be great for pharmacists to have more responsibility and deal more with MTM. I just believe it will be a while before this actually happens.
Corrine Sharpe
After watching the InstyMed video, I am concerned about our patient’s health. There could be a scenario where a patient needs some emergency medicine and the vending machine might not work. At least in pharmacies or hospitals there are professionals to help them. Roshni Ramirez (P1)
Technology is a great tool that is utilized in many pharmacies nationwide. Items such as computers, barcode scanners, and more are great assets to have because it does reduce on prescription errors and it does increase organization. However, technology such as InstyMeds could be a dangerous advancement in the field of pharmacy. It would eliminate the need for pharmacies and particularly affect our job security. Also, I don't think it would be too accurate due to the ability to type in any code, it would not catch drug errors and interactions, and it interferes with direct patient-pharmacist contact. I'm extremely interested in the traditional role that a pharmacist now has in the retail setting. We now have MTMs, outcomes, and we give vaccinations in addition to that typical role. That is good change and I can appreciate that job description. So, I personally hope this advancement does not find its way to North Carolina.
-Aaron Shaver
I think pharmacy is headed in the right direction and is expanding in all the right aspects. The profession is one of the most recognized for patient care. It is the most accessible and approachable aspect when delivering patient care. I think that it is encouraging and it does excite me. In the future, I think that with the expansion of knowledge and the increased roles of pharmacists it can only enhance the respect for the profession. I feel that training through school and the workplace needs to be sufficient in preparing us for the involvement of such roles.
After viewing the video, I think technology will be more of a threat than an opportunity. InstyMeds take away from direct patient care and with the focus of increasing that I feel that this type of technology only hinders that. Robots such as counting machines might be of a small opportunity as they could help decrease errors and allow the pharmacist to interact with patients more. I think InstyMeds is taking away the profession from future pharmacists. In regards to patient counseling, how is that effective with InstyMeds? If we have machines like InstyMeds, what is the point of focusing on promoting wellness, safety, etc. I think that this would be more effective through the communication between pharmacist and patient as opposed to a robot and patient.
The field of pharmacy is beginning to focus on clinical aspects (such as administering immunizations) more and more as opposed to the traditional roles of a pharmacist; i.e. "count, lick, stick, and pour". Also, technology is advancing before our eyes and threatening the jobs of many pharmacists, as well as pharmacy technicians. The InstyMeds dispenser has the potential to close down many community pharmacies, depending on how receptive patients are to the idea of a robot dispensing their medication. There is a phone available next to the dispenser if the patient has any questions, but from my experience in retail pharmacies, there are always insurance problems or other issues that may arise that require face-to-face communication. The InstyMeds website states that it is 100% accurate, with a triple check process, but it seems unsafe not having an actual pharmacist verify everything. As someone mentioned in class, hopefully InstyMeds will not take over like Redbox did with movie stores. I do not think that the physical interaction and trust patients have with a pharmacist can be replaced by a machine.
Tami Harty
I don't think of the Instymed machines musch differently than I think of the mail order pharmacies that a lot of insurances require their patients to use. It may take away some business away from the retail pharmacy and may even one day take a majoriry of the business away, but as what has been happening to the field of pharmacy now, in the fact that it is expanding and evolving, it will continue to do so. Retail pharmacy may end up looking completely different in the future, but so will the profession as a whole.
After seeing how the InstyMeds machines might be used in the future, I have to admit that at first this caused me to be concerned. It made me wonder if one day pharmacists as traditional "dispensers" of medicine will one day be obsolete. However, as long as these machines are restricted to certain places, such as emergency rooms, I think they may offer tremendous benefit. For one thing, many retail pharmacists find that their hands are full with the number of prescriptions they must fill every day. Some pharmacists I have talked to have told me that not only does such a high volume cause them stress, but it also takes away time that they would prefer to be spent counseling patients on their medications and other health concerns. With the InstyMeds dispensers restricted to certain places, I don't think they will be a threat to pharmacy. Probably the biggest problems that arise from these machines will be unavailability of certain drugs (once they have all been dispensed and need to be replenished) and of course the typical issues that arise with insurance claims (such as prior authorizations and deductibles). It will definitely be interesting to see how these machines may affect retail pharmacy over the next few years. Nonetheless, I feel that pharmacists will always play important roles in health care and will continue provide health services that are in demand.
In my opinion, the Insty Med videos are alarming. There was not a verification of patient drug allergies. If a patient were to be seen at an urgent care facility and did not list all of the medications currently being taken or medications that they were allergic too, then potentially there could be a reaction. The Insty Med dispenser checks to verify what the patient receives is what the doctor prescribes, but there are not checks for drug interactions. I feel that these systems could be very useful at emergency rooms and after hours urgent cares, but patient safety is a concern. Another concern is that these machines may be marketed similar to Coke or Pepsi machines. Medication and quantities will be prescribed based on what is stocked in the machine, not necessarily what is best for the patient. Pharmacists are an important player in the health care community and people place a lot of faith in the advice and care that is given at the pharmacy. No matter how efficient a computer may be I do not feel the human element will ever be completely eliminated from the prescription dispensing role.
Tony Rudisill
I believe the future of pharmacy is a positive one, with the expanding options on the horizon for scope of practice, as well as the many different ways a pharmacy degree can be applied toward a career. I am scared of the advances in technology such as the instymeds robot because it really could put many pharmacies out of business, or at least replace many workers, and although that may save a few people alot of money in operating costs, it costs alot of people their jobs. The benefits I see to this are that patients will have access to their rx meds much more immediately, especially in more dire circumstances such as at the emergency room or urgent care, after an incident occuring during hours when area pharmacies are closed for business. Other technologies within a pharmacy can be helpful in creating a more efficient business and allowing for more profit for the pharmacist owner. I am still left frightened by the InstyMeds video. Robots, are a reality, and one way or another they will become integrated more and more into society, so we need to find a way to have them work along side humans and not in place of them.
Evan Palmieri
Regarding the InstyMeds video, I feel like they could potentially be helpful. I think they could free up time for the pharmacist, but then again what about the patients that do not have the technical background to even use the machine. There are always problems with technology and the outcome of a glitch in this machine could potentially be life threatening. As for the patient… do they have a choice whether to go to the InstyMed machine or to see a real pharmacist for their prescription? Or is it the doctors choice and if the drug is given through the machine that is where they must receive it? I personally would like picking my prescriptions up there. It would allow me to avoid waiting in line, and since I have been on my medication for longer than six months, I do not need to consult the pharmacist. So using this technology in moderation is something that I think could definitely be useful.
I am really excited about vision 2015 statement laid out by ACCP. I really feel that if this role is recognized and accepted by all healthcare providers, then Pharmacists will be able to provide management of medication therapy as additional services to what it is being done in the traditional role. In that case they will be applying most or all of the knowledge and skills that they have acquired from Pharmacy school.
I don't think that the traditional role that Pharmacists play will be lost at all but rather it will be enhanced. Most community Pharmacists that I have interacted with tend to say that they have lost a lot of what they were taught in Pharmacy school because they do not use them on a regular basis. So I believe that giving Pharmacist this kind of autonomy in their jobs will be very rewarding in the end.
....Vida Ohene Agyeman.
After watching the InstyMeds video, I was left with mixed feelings. Is this going to eliminate Pharmacy Technician jobs, Pharmacist jobs or both? I think time will tell but from efficiency stand point I think technology is always the right way to go. Having said that I think this robot will be helpful for certain medications only and will remain as such. I saw that in one of the comments, there was a comparison between ATM's and the InstyMeds. Although we have these ATM's, we still have human being tellers. In that same notion, we welcome this InstyMeds, but I don't believe they can totally eliminate the need for Pharmacy Technicians or Pharmacist. Still time will tell....
-Vida Ohene Agyeman
A few weeks ago, I attended an NCAP conference where we discussed this same article about the future of the profession of pharmacy. We decided that while many of these goals seem beneficial and possible, their attainability within the suggested time frame is unlikely. Granted, this article was written several years ago and these goals probably did seem more possible back then; however, seeing how far we've come since its writing and the time we have left to accomplish these goals, I would say that it is not very likely. The main thing to consider is how we can avoid being in the same situation a few years from now. The only way to accomplish that is to assess where we are as a profession today and then take action to help us to reach our goals sooner. It most likely wont be done in three years, but they are definitely within reach.
Regarding the InstyMed videos, I was initially kind of upset with the thought of a machine taking over for a health profession such as pharmacy, but after taking some time to consider the impact these machines would make, I decided that it would be selfish not to encourage the use of these machines. Overall, they won't have too big of an impact on most pharmacies at this point, and they will be very advantageous for patients, especially those that need medications provided in the machines, like analgesics and antibiotics, and to those who are being seen in urgent care centers and other clinics where the InstyMed machines will be predominately located. As others have mentioned, the downside to these machines is that they are electronic and, therefore, are subject to malfunction or power failure and the like. The other painful reality is that patients will most likely find a way to ruin anything that is set up to help them. The most obvious downfall of this machine would be its inability to monitor patient allergies and concurrent medications, and patients aren't always a good source of this information. The same is true of people now who go to many different doctors or pharmacies, so it may not be a controllable problem. Still, I feel like I would support the use of these machines with a little more legislation.
Jesse R Alvarado
I am very excited about what the future of pharmacy has in store. We learned in our Pharm Care class that pharmacists were once located in the front of the store, accessible to speak to and slowly over time the pharmacist got pushed to the back, behind a counter. I think that it’s about time that the pharmacist plays a more critical role in health care and steps back out in front. Pharmacists are “essential to the provision of effective health care”.
I was at first skeptical about a machine dispensing medication, but after watching the videos on InstyMed I think that in the hospital setting they are beneficial to patients. The prescriptions being filled are from the ER, where the patient had been seen and usually during hours when pharmacies are closed. Although not stated in any of the videos, I would assume that if a patient is not comfortable with using the machine they can get a regular prescription to take to their pharmacist. For what this particular machine is being used for I don’t see any looming threat, however if it steps beyond its current use there could be issues.
-Stacey Kalsky
Before starting pharmacy school I was concerned about the future of the pharmacists’ role. I had read stories about the InstyMed robot system and correlated it to the expansion of any other vending machine. I was threatened the job market for pharmacists would be increasingly diminished. But, after learning the vast options a pharmD can pursue I became less skeptical. It was also reassuring to think about a pharmacist as more than just a dispenser. There is a personal interaction that many people find comforting. The role of the pharmacist is expanding, leading to more job opportunities and greater job security. I personally do not see the InstyMed system expanding outside the hospital or extended care facilities.
Jay Billingsley
Leaving our traditional roles as dispensers seems the way we are destined to go. Whether that role will be filled by technicians or machines only time will tell. Where Pharmacy will go however, seems uncertain to me. Pharmacy organizations want us front and center in patient counseling. With our advanced knowledge in drug interactions and effects, we are naturally suited to the task of helping patients with their medications. It has also been put forward that we should be able to modify a patient’s drug regimen under the direction of practicing physicians. At this point it often seems the only thing separating a pharmacist from a doctor with a specialty in internal medicine are a few disease state and symptom classes. Going forward as pharmacists continue to integrate into the medical team and away from retail, it will be interesting to see how our evolving expertise will be utilized for improved patient care
-Jabon Efird
The pairing these two things into one topic (the InstyMed system and the article on the future of pharmacy practice) seems to imply that the field of pharmacy is trying to expand away from the traditional roles of compounding and dispensing. On their own, the two ideas could be viewed very negatively. The InstyMed machine offers a robotic alternative to many pharmacists’ roles. This could be seen as a threat to the profession, rendering some/much of the roles of a pharmacist and pharmacy technician unnecessary. The article that describes the future of pharmacy practice to be clinical and patient-centered could imply more responsibility and more tasks that the pharmacist will be required to take on as apart of an extended job description. I think that if the two ideas can be properly paired up to complement each other, the future of pharmacy can be very much improved. I am personally excited about the progressive movement of pharmacy but that may be because I am more interested in clinical pharmacy. I do wonder what will happen to retail pharmacy if the InstyMed system is established. I rarely see any documents describing how retail pharmacy will align with these new goals in the practice of pharmacy. It will be interesting to see if retail settings will start to introduce a stronger clinical side or if the introduction of the InstyMed (and possible expansion of its vending machine-like use) will result in the loss of job availability in chains.
I like how this week we looked at both the expanding roles, responsibilities, and educational requirements of clinical pharmacists as well as the new robots that are dispensing certain types of medication. To me, the two ideas seem to completely conflict with each other, and in my opinion a robot will never be able to replace a pharmacist. The first article helped us to see and understand the expanding roles of pharmacists and the future we have as pharmacists. In my opinion this proves that a robot is not a good alternative for a pharmacist. A robot will never be able to counsel patients, give vaccines, point out drug related problems that are hindering pharmaceutical care, or talk and work with the patient one on one. With our expanding roles, there is no way a robot can do what we can do, so I do not see a point in having them, and I think most patients would agree. Although the robot is fast and convenient it does not provide the knowledge, counseling, and personal relationship a pharmacist can provide. Despite many people's beliefs, pharmacy is not an easy career and I don't think a robot can take over our knowledge and experience in a safe and effective manner. Not to mention I do not think the robots would appeal to older generations. I am excited about the expanding roles of pharmacists; however, I am not excited about the potential of a robot dispensing medication
-Katelyn Palmer
I agree with Niko, that a patient and outcome center view of pharmacy is developing, and that it is the right path we as pharmacist should take to enhance care. I have my reservation for InstyMed however, not only because it can take jobs, but it can also cut use out of the care process if the patient is not required to see us.
I feel that we have a lot of pharmacists who believe we can help create a better healthcare system in our country. With everything going on in regards to healthcare we need to stand up for what we know we can do. It is our obligation as professionals to help in any way we are trained to do. I think the vision of pharmacists is a great vision that will take time and a lot of effort, but in the long run will be great for everyone involved.
As for the InstyMeds machine, it is an interesting concept. It worries me because of allergies, interactions, and non-consoling abilities. However, if we were to use this technology for the most common and non-abused drugs in the retail setting it could free up time for the pharmacist to actually expand their role as we are hoping to do. The problem is I see companies using these machines to cut hours and jobs of pharmacy professionals. If this happens all it does it hurt the system overall and puts more money in their pockets. We have to make sure we are a part of the decision making as we roll into the future. Lets make the best out of the technology and professional advancements we want to make happen!
On the InstyMeds website, it says that the idea for a prescription dispensing machine began in 1999. Dr. Rosenblum couldn’t find a pharmacy that was open at 10:00PM, so he could get a prescription filled for his son. Since we have 24-hour pharmacies open on almost every street corner, it appears that these machines are no longer necessary.
I don’t view these machines as a potential threat, because the website doesn’t disclose how many machines they have in the 34 states they occupy. They may only have one machine in each state, which only covers one acute care center.
Also, refills are not available at these machines. Patients must take their scripts to be filled at a retail pharmacy in order to receive refills.
Even though InstyMeds doesn’t require staffing to fill the prescription, there are people who work at a call center to process insurance and answer questions. Lastly, patients are charged an additional $1-2 convenience fee.
Like many people have previously said, I was initially worried after watching the video on the InstyMed machines. It just makes you worried that soon the need for pharmacists will be scarce because everything we currently do will be automated. Although these systems may have flaws, they will appeal to the public and could possibly begin to eliminate the current roles of a pharmacist.
With that being said I think this is somewhat encouraging for the future of pharmacist. I believe that this speaks to the increased roles in clinical services that are imminent in the near future. As these machines come into play, we as pharmacists must advance our field of practice and specialties. This will allow us and these vending machines to exist simultaneously. So as it may initially appear to be a threat, these technological robots may serve as motivation to advance the role of a pharmacist into more clinical specialties.
I was worried when I saw the video about InstyMeds. It seemed that technology might takeover the traditional dispensing role of pharmacists; however, I think that InstyMed could actually help pharmacists. Pharmacists would have more time to spend monitoring patients. InstyMed would also allow people to pick up medications late at night when some independent pharmacies are closed. Although InstyMed might help, I do not think they can wipe out community pharmacies, at least I hope not.
Curtis Austin
I feel as though the future of pharmacy is expanding in the right direction. As our training and education gets more advanced, I think it only makes sense that our role also expands. Providing medications to patients and customers is a vital part of someone getting better so we should be involved in more than just the distribution part. We should have a role in the entire process. As the article said, we should "manage medication therapy" and be "accountable for patients' therapeutic outcomes." We will have to communicate with all members of the health care team including the patient or their caregiver. I believe this is how it should be because when we graduate, this is what we will be qualified to do. The patient's overall well-being and health status is just as much our responsibility as it is the physicians and this is where the role of pharmacists is heading.
The InstyMed machines I believe have no future in pharmacy. Although they are supposed to run smoothly and error-free, it is still running on technology which is not perfect. I foresee very critical errors happening if they their way into everyday society. Also, many people like the personal touch that a pharmacist brings to the table. They like being able to build a relationship and have face to face interaction when dealing with medications and illnesses. I don't think it's a good idea and I don't perceive it as a future form of pharmacy.
Very few professions are immune to change and pharmacy is no exception. As the career advances and changes, new niches are created and in healthcare these specializations can improve individuals outcomes. As new practice areas are created this will continue to expand the role of pharmacists in the healthcare model as it is (especially in North Carolina) ready to take on new and exciting job responsibilities. Pharmacists have embraced technology as it has came along and this has led to safer practices throughout the different practice areas. Despite the continually advancing use of technology in pharmacy, it will never replace a human-being. Appropriate and individualized counseling will always need to be the responsibility of a human with compassion and understanding.
Honestly, I am excited about the direction where pharmacy is headed in the future. With six to eight years of education and continuing education in pharmacy profession, I believe we can fulfill the 2015 visions in the statement. Having said that, we do need resources and support from others healthcare professions.
After watching InstyMeds, I can see both sides of technology in pharmacy. On one hand, technology does reduce workloads for pharmacists. I worked at a hospital where they have a robot for dispensing and label medication before a pharmacy technician check and dispense medication to patients. On the other hand, if we are too dependent on technology, it can be a problem. I do not agree InstyMeds because I believe that no technology can replace a pharmacist to counsel patients. There is difference between talking to a machine and to a real human being.
Diep Phan
I think that the future of pharmacy is headed in a positive direction. Future pharmacist will be highly educated in all the important areas. We will know about medications and also about the human body. This allows for adequate medication therapy management and other health services. We will be able to help the patient in more ways than in the past. I also feel that with new technology, things will be easier for pharmacists, meaning better service for patients also. The new technology will take time to be perfected and to get rid of the flaws, so there will be problems at first. InstyMed's will also need some time to become very productive and popular. It will take time for people to start trusting a machine like that. It won't be an instant overnight success like Redbox. But, overall I think technology will be a positive addition to the pharmacy practice.
The advancement of pharmacy has seriously skyrocketed as of late. If I were to say I wasn't intimidated by the future it would be a huge lie. It's always hard to tear yourself away from what you've known and been used to but in order to move forward, sometimes the comfort zone has to be eliminated. I feel that pharmacy is really going to open up so many more opportunities for current pharmacists, students, and patients alike.
As far as InstyMeds is concerned...there could be way too many flaws with that plan. The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the video was a drug crazed person somehow prying open the machine and stealing the drugs and the money!! I feel that even though it seems more convenient, convenience isn't always the best option. Take for instance Script Pro robots. They count, fill, and label prescriptions. However, they don't always get it right. Drugs can be miscounted, mislabeled, and occasionally some tablets are broken in the machine. I feel that if InstyMeds really is the future, then hopefully it can be used to aid pharmacists and not send them to unemployment lines.
-Antoinette Roberts
As a pharmacy student, it's difficult to watch the InstyMeds video and not feel a bit of concern. However, I think the future of pharmacy is bright. We have talked about the advanced scope of practice that pharmacists are taking on, and it is easy to see that no pharmacist can be replaced by a machine. There is far too much training that goes into a Pharm.D. Pharmacists no longer just dispense medications. I believe that InstyMeds will actually give pharmacists more time to focus on patient care and “optimize medication therapy”.
Overall, I am excited that pharmacy is heading in a more patient-interaction oriented direction from the traditional dispensing role. Although the InstyMed videos do scare me, I don’t see them as being practical in the near future. The technology is still very new and it would be a liability for pharmacies to implement them until their error rate is extremely minimal. Even if they did, they would still need to be checked by a pharmacist to ensure that they have not made any mistakes while dispensing and would also be limited in the type of medications they could dispense, so I see them as being more of a threat for pharmacy techs than pharmacists. However, the ACCP’s statement shows that the mindset for pharmacy is heading in the right direction, and I look forward to seeing how the role of pharmacists will expand in the future.
Unlike some of my colleagues, Instymed hardly strikes fear into my heart. While a dispensing machine seems like a futuristic and novel idea, I feel if it was a threat it would be more of a talking point among the pharmacists I have shadowed and otherwise encountered. If anything, it seems like it would be more of a threat to pharmacy technicians rather than pharmacists, and I think we can all agree technology is generally helpful in our completing tasks as humans. Also, doesn't anyone think they could have developed a better name than Instymed?
At first glance InstyMed's seems like a threat. It is years away from having any great impact on pharmacy and our jobs in dispensing medication. However I can see InstyMed having a greater impact on the field by it showing how dispensing medications without a pharmacist can be done. I can see chains and other parts of pharmacy that are solely in pharmacy industry for profit using this to push the pharmacist out of pharmacy. Lets be honest about the situation, chains having to pay the salary of a pharmacist is a burden on them and I'm sure one of their man goals is to somehow lower the number of pharmacist required. Things like central checking and technicians checking technicians would increase the profitability of the chains considerably. I see InstyMed as just a buffer or example of how these things could be possible. Of course this is all just a doomsday situation for pharmacy but it is something to think about.
Evan Medford
I believe the robotic technology is a novel idea, but I know how practical it could be. I have pharmacy experience and some of the patients I've had interactions with might not be able to work the machine, no matter how simple it may be. I feel that it could be beneficial to people that want to hurry through the process of getting their medications and get home, but could be problematic for elderly patients that do not understand the technology.
I personally believe that the technology is both an opportunity and a threat depending on how they are utilized. There are robots that already function in a pharmacy that will count pills and are very beneficial to better utilizing the time of the techs and the pharmacists. These robots are efficient in counting and dispensing.
On the opposing side, there are machines that are a threat. The InstyMeds machines completely eliminate the pharmacist. Not only is it a threat to our involvement, but it is threatening patient care. Doctors may make mistakes and having a pharmacist involved may catch the mistake whereas the robot may not be able to fix the mistake and the risk then is passed onto the patient. There is also no interaction with the pharmacist so if they need more of an explanation of the drug or if they need to take it in a specific dose. For example some medications you may want to start off with a lower dose and easing into the regimen to avoid significant side effects which would need more of an explanation. In addition to the patient care, the machine will not have a record of all the patient’s medications so it would not be able to catch the possible interactions that may be present.
Brittany Logston
I believe that the future of pharmacy will only expand but I don’t think that machines will ever replace pharmacists for good. There are many vital tasks and duties that a pharmacist performs that a machine cannot do. For example, a machine can possibly make even more mistakes than an actual pharmacist. In addition, these machines do not offer patient counseling, which is one of the most important duties of a pharmacist. In addition, these types of machines will not be able to check for interactions that a doctor had missed. Aside from the important duties of a pharmacist there are many other issues with these medication machine dispensers. A great example is a prescription requiring compounding. It would be very difficult to replace a compounding pharmacist. Even though technology is advancing, I believe its still very difficult for machines to completely replace pharmacists.
A topic which I forgot to talk about in terms of patient safety is the likelihood of abuse for controlled substances. From personal experience, I have seen a patient who has a long history of abuse and fraud using every trick she can think of to receive Vicodin pills from us. She would lie that someone stole her drugs so now, she needs three more months of supply. In another incident, she would say that she left her medicines at her mother's house in another state and she absolutely need another batch of Vicodin or she will die! But a clever and favorite trick she loves to use is have different perscriptions under different names. For example, on one Vicodin perscription, her name would be "Suzzy Doe" while on another, it would be "Susan Smith." Both of these names refer to the same person because she is using both her maiden and marriage names including a nickname while visiting different doctors. She would get three months supply of Vicodin from our store and then another three months supply from another.
With this InstyMed machine, she and millions of abusers like her will have a much easier time for abuse. They can just stand there after feeding five or six perscriptions into the machine and receive a zillion Vicodin pills within minutes.
Another senario is desperate addicts breaking into these machines to steal controlled substances. The thieves don't even need to be addicts since these drugs can fetch a handsome return on the street.
Future of Pharmacy
I find the path of pharmacy much more nerving than when I first considered the industry. I am certainly open to more career paths than I had originally considered and not from being encouraged. Frightened would be a better choice of words. Not in the sense that I don’t believe I will have a job when I get out of school, but what kind of job and where will be the question. With advancing technology and an evolving healthcare system, it seems that pharmacists will have to be more versatile than ever. Even though I have not considered a residency in the past, I am certainly thanking about it now. I am already doing a dual degree and I am still considering other ways to set myself apart from other pharmacists. The thought of being replaced or at the very least countered with an automated dispenser is unacceptable. I find it imperative to acquire the skills necessary to minimize the threat of over abundance of pharmacist and/or advancing technology.
it is an inevitable fact that we continue to develop technology in our everyday lives. As technology grow, we must use it as a tool that can help us to play our role as pharmacists. The robot system and machine should not take the place of pharmacists, it can only be used as 'Machine' that makes our lives easier, nothing more than that.
Despite the fact that technology is advancing and pharmacy is becoming more of a convenienve than it ever has been, I think pharmacists remain in high demand. Dispensing machines are being made, where patients can go to a type of vending machine and receive medication if they have a special code and birth date. These machines can dispense dozens of different medications, with proper instructions and labeling on each bottle. Even though individuals do not have to see a pharmacist in person in order to receive their medications, many people (especially the older generation who make up a large portion of medication consumers) will still choose to talk with their pharmacist in order to become more knowledgeable and vindicated about their lifestyle according to the drug or drugs they are taking and their disorders. Even if these machines become utilized nationwide, the need for pharmacists will still exist, possibly in a more personal way. Without having to fulfill the typical dispensing role requirements of the average pharmacist, pharmacists can have more time with patients to do MTMs, solve compliance issues, and perform brown bag therapy for patients in order to provide optimized therapy, including lowered costs, fewer medications, and fewer side effects, for patients. In conclusion, I believe that the future of pharmacy is not threatened by technology, but it could be looked upon as being more exciting, promising, and hands-on.
Yes, technology is advancing at a pace much faster than most of us can or are willing to accept, but I highly, highly doubt it will entirely replace humans in the workfield, let alone the pharmaceutical industry. There will always -- and I mean always -- be a need for human involvement, no matter the degree of betterment pharmacy receives over the years.
-James Agtuca
A big issue with the automated dispensers is that it essentially eliminates the middle man (i.e. the pharmacist). If the doctor prescribes a medicine that is a dose too high or dose too low and the patient can just enter the number in the machine to dispense the medication, who is there to regulate that process?
Jessica Osteen
Post a Comment