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?
72 comments:
After reading the article, I believe that as the profession of pharmacy continues to grow and become more diverse, so will our roles. This article highlights a possible outline of basic pharmacist duties in the future. I believe that as the health care system gets more complicated, each of the health care roles will be tasked with more duties and responsibilities to help improve the patient’s health, which includes pharmacist. The article mentions various roles the future pharmacist will have, which I think is exciting and encouraging. Giving the pharmacist a bigger role/responsibility in the patient’s health, such as managing the rational use of medication for the patient is a role I believe will help give pharmacist more recognition in the health care system. We would be tasked with an even greater role in our knowledge of medications and drugs that would directly help influence the patient’s wellbeing. This would also help relieve some stress and burden from the physician so they can focus more on diagnosis and curing patients while the pharmacist is tasked with the medications to help relieve these symptoms. I believe this will encourage future pharmacist, because it gives them a greater means to apply all the knowledge about drugs and medication they have studied.
I believe that robotics and technology will be more of an opportunity for us. I think that technology and robotics like InstyMeds will help reduce the time it takes to fill drugs, and will also improve the accuracy of the medication dispensed. However, I believe that there will always be a need for a pharmacist for the patient. I believe patients will always need a pharmacist to be able to interact with, whether it is to ask questions, or to just talk to about their medication. Although robotics will help take away some of the duties of filling our prescriptions, the most important role of counseling and interacting with the patient can not be replaced.
Chris Chu
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
The future of pharmacy looks to more automation in dispensing, which could be a very good thing. I'm sure no one will miss counting, and a machine can do it more quickly, and possibly with less human error. Allowing more time for quality checking and patient counseling. This kind of tech has been in use or on its way to us for some time so it is not a surprise, and if it were to make me nervous I probably would have chosen a different profession. We do not need 6 or more years of training to QC work and a properly made machine should be able to count, and check more effectively than a person, leaving us free to use those years of training on something a little more demanding. Of course a machine can do only so much and there is still room for error but that should fade as the machines become more prevalent and time works out the bugs. I think the portions that machines will take up will be those least important to the profession.
One of the videos, on the InstyMeds, said that 30% of patients do not fill their prescriptions and that their machine would give a 95% fill rate. This they said would reduce readmits due to patients not taking their meds. This does not necessarily follow as those who would not have filled their prescription, are already showing a lack of compliance and may continue this trend even after filling the prescription.
Ben Roseberry
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
I think that the future of pharmacy is headed more toward direct patient care settings. However, I do believe that there will always be a place for community and hospital setting pharmacists. The future of pharmacy does truthfully make me a bit nervous to see it getting away from its traditional roles. Seeing that robotics and automation are making headway in eliminating some of the traditional roles that pharmacists hold, as well as the increasing number of people becoming pharmacists, I can’t help but be a bit skeptical that there will always be a job for every one of us for the rest of our lives. I do think that pharmacists are successfully expanding their scope of practice and that they can be important parts of direct patient care. As medication experts, I do think that pharmacists should have expanded roles in direct patient care settings. I think that technology and automation can be both an opportunity and a threat to the jobs of community and hospital setting pharmacists. I have seen machines that assist with the filling of prescriptions, but still require parts of the prescription filling process to be done by the pharmacist. These types of machines I believe are an asset to pharmacists, although they might be a threat to the jobs of pharmacist technicians. However, seeing fully automated machines like InstyMeds that might require a pharmacist in a remote location on occasion, these types of machines may someday try to eliminate the need for hospital and community setting pharmacists. From the video though, it does not look like the pharmacist talks to the patient unless the patient specifically asks to speak to the pharmacist. Although the machine might have never dispensed the wrong drug, there was no pharmacist looking at the patients prescription history to determine if the newly prescribed drug might interact with any other medications that he patient may have previously been prescribed. Also, technology like this kind of removes the last line of defense, in the way of pharmacists possibly catching mistakes made by doctors. It looked also like the machine could only dispense bottles of a certain number of pills. If a patient only needs a few days supply of a medication, it didn’t look as though the machine could count out a specific number of pills to dispense. Another thing is that there will always be a place for compounding pharmacists to make compounded medications because it would be very hard to create a machine that could perform those roles.
Ed Svendsen
WUSOP
PharmD Doctoral Candidate
Class of 2017
I believe the future of pharmacy as pertaining to increased patient care and medication management is headed in a positive direction. No longer are pharmacists holding the positions of the stereotypical "pill counters." Pharmacists are starting to have an increased role in patient interaction. According to the article, pharmacists will be responsible for the therapeutic outcome of patients. This requires consulting one on one with patients and other health care professionals. Thus, pharmacists will be the main source of knowledge when it comes to the proper use of medications as well as the education of why each drug is needed. If pharmacists are responsible for following up with patients in their drug therapy and making adjustments to their medical plan of action, this will potentially give other physicians more time to see patients, look over their past medical history, evaluate their symptoms, and make the proper diagnoses. Less patients will need to see their primary care doctor because pharmacists will be available to answer questions about medications and discuss patient progress. This allows less wait times at doctor's offices and more "personal" visits rather than a quick five minute appearance from the doctor. The increasing role of pharmacists will help to shed the idea that pharmacists simply stand behind a counter all day and fill prescriptions as they can now have more involvement with patients and their well-being. Patients may also be more willing to fill their prescriptions and less fearful to ask any questions if there is a pharmacist on hand who shows interest in their health and improvement.
As far as technology is concerned, I will forever hold the old-fashioned belief that society is becoming too dependent on technology. I believe there needs to be a limitation to certain technological advancements, especially in the healthcare field. In relation to the InstyMeds dispenser, while it is convenient for individuals who need medication right away and do not have access to a pharmacy, this machine takes away the personal relationship that can be developed between a patient and their pharmacist. Also, patients will miss out on the opportunity to be educated on why they are taking a certain medicine or its proper use. A person is not available to show concern for the patient and ask how they are doing. Yet, these are all important aspects of the pharmaceutical experience. In addition, machines are not invincible. They can crash or make mistakes. What if a patient is dispensed the wrong medication? There is no pharmacist around to double or even triple check the prescription and sometimes doctors make mistakes when they prescribe medications, leaving the pharmacist to call and follow-up. In some cases, the medication dose is even changed. A machine cannot do this. Machines also take away the value of a pharmacist's role in the community and their practice for patient-centered care.
Kelli Ferguson
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
Wingate University Class of 2017
I am very excited about the direction our profession is headed. I feel like it is much more patient oriented and clinically based. This will allow us to continuously learn and use our knowledge while helping patients understand their disease states and medications. I chose this profession because it is ever changing, challenging and people oriented; and based on this article is going to continue to be this way!
I don't really think InstyMeds lines up with the way pharmacy is headed, but I certainly see its advantages. It is patient oriented when it comes to getting their medicine quickly and helping insure that they leave the hospital/Dr. office with it. However, InstyMeds eliminates face time between patient and pharmacist which is often very valuable with a new prescription. The technology behind it is impressive, but it is lacking in patient care.
Upon reading the article, I feel optimistic about the roles pharmacists will be performing. I already see more of these roles in the hospital setting which I work in. Pharmacists attend rounds with other health-care providers, make essential changes when needed to antibiotic therapies, monitor PT/INRs and assess microbiology reports, and consult on antibiotic therapies and Warfarin dosing regimens. I believe that in the full picture of Pharmaceutical Care pharmacists need to take more of these roles in order to have positive patient outcomes. I also observe physicians working with these pharmacists, and these physicians have told me that they are happy pharmacists are there to perform these functions. In regards to the robotics, I agree that in certain roles robotics can be extremely helpful reducing workload volumes for technicians. However, robotics can take away from the personal contact pharmacists can have with their patients. Robotics are useful in hospitals and retail pharmacies for filling medications which free up technicians and pharmacists for other functions. Upon watching the video, I found that I did not particularly like the Instamed machine. I found that it took away the personal aspect vital in the relationship between a pharmacist and the patient.
Rebecca Andersen
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
The future of Pharmacy I believe is transpiring to a more clinically based field. This will require Pharmacists to be more involved in patients' drug therapy and overall healthcare. This shift in turn is beneficial in reducing healthcare costs. Personally, I am excited about the future of Pharmacy and have hopes of working closely with patients to achieve an overall better state of health. However, I do feel that Pharmacists can't be replaced by a computer for dispensing purposes. Computers falter and make mistakes, just as people do. A Pharmacists should always check medications for accuracy before a patient is given any prescription medication.
Katie Brooks
WUSOP
Pharmacy Candidate class of 2017
It is quite exhilarating to see that the vision statement for Pharmacists in 2015, shows pharmacists taking more of a role in Patient MTMs. After shadowing Physician Assistants and Doctors at a local ENT office, I realize there is not enough time in the day for them to counsel each patient on their drug therapy. Additionally, with the amount of patients that some of these health care professionals have to keep track of, there is bound to be many patients with unneeded duplicate drug therapies. I feel that as an aspiring pharmacist, it is my civic duty to provide MTM services. With that being said, in order to implement MTM at the retail level, there needs to be more pharmacist overlap than what is currently in place.
In terms of the Insty Med robot, I am still a little skeptical of it. How will it help diabetes patients comply with their insulin regime? Is there a fridge in the machine? What about patients with certain sensitivities do dyes and fillers, will they have a say in what manufacturer pill needs to be dispensed for them? Also how can a patient be sure that there pills were properly counted?
Greg Hanseler
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
When looking into the future of pharmacy, I do get very excited at the thought that I will be knowledgeable enough to do all the great things that the ACCP expects us to do. However, it is a bit scary to think that the career that I am pursuing is always changing. Although the thought of change is frightening, I feel that these changes are for the best. More schooling and experience is now required for pharmacists so that we will be able to take on these new roles. I think these changes truly do embrace the idea of a patient-centered environment.
As far as the advances in technology go, I feel it is a bit concerning to our profession. Not in the sense that technology can replace us but the idea that the public may think it can. I don't think the duties and responsibilities of a pharmacist can be replaced by anything or anyone but the majority of the public doesn't understand what pharmacists really do other than "count pills and put them in a bottle". If anything I think these technological advances will benefit our profession because it helps with the “easy” part of the job. Anyone can count pills so taking this duty away from pharmacists gives more time for counseling and medication therapy management. Since this is the direction pharmacy is heading in, technology will help clear the way to these extra tasks.
Whitney C. Smith
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate, Class of 2017
I think that pharmacists' expanding roles is a great opportunity for pharmacists and healthcare as a whole. Changes in expectations of pharmacy could give pharmacists a more active role in healthcare and therapy management. This is very exciting and positive.I believe these changes described in the Vision Statement could allow pharmacists to improve healthcare and further expand their profession.
Programs such as InstyMeds can be convenient and may be able to replace many pharmacist and technician duties.
InstyMeds could really help patients who are very sick and need their medication as fast as possible. However, it seems that the medication will be dispensed to them without any check from a pharmacist. It looked like the only time the pharmacist was contacted was if the patient had a question. This could take away from important patient counseling usually done in the pharmacy. If InstyMeds and other similar programs are going to be utilized, it should be done so with caution.
Mary Parsons
PharmD candidate 2017
WUSOP
I am truly excited about the future of pharmacy if we really do follow the vision statement laid out by the Joint Commission of Pharmacy Practitioners. Taking an active role in improving and making a difference in others' lives is why I have been working in the healthcare field for over the past decade. Embracing the concept of pharmaceutical care and making it the basis for which we operate is not just a huge step in the right direction for pharmacists, but also for the patients’ lives that we will positively impact. If done correctly, and documented correctly we could get the patients, other healthcare professionals and even the insurance companies on board. Like Dr. Haltom brought up today in IPPE, it is the bottom line, cost savings that creates the biggest incentive for insurance companies to back us up on this. And if as pharmacists we focus more on patient outcomes and show them that they CAN actually manage their disease states we would be so much more valuable to them. Not as just a supplier of their medications, but as an active partner in the treatment and management process.
As people see how pharmacists are taking a more active role with the patient we need not to worry too much as fads like InstyMeds emerge. I do feel that this technology does stand to be a threat if we are not proactive about handling this situation. And their sales pitch is a bit flawed because just if a patient gets a prescription filled it doesn't necessarily mean that they will take the medication accordingly if at all.
Ginger Pedersen
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
The future of pharmacy is headed towards the role of pharmacists increasing. Pharmacists will be focused on medication therapy for the patient and improving the end result of the therapy. With pharmacists having a more involved role, there will be less error in medications, leading to less money spent due to error. After reading the 2015 vision statement, I am encouraged and excited. By broadening the scope of practice for pharmacists, it allows more involvement in helping others by improving their quality of life.
After watching a video on Instymed, I think it is a threat to pharmacists. Technology is useful in so many ways, but it can also replace the needs for humans. Having a machine capable of dispensing medications that is linked to 24/7 help, decreases the need for pharmacists. I would think that the public would feel more comfortable with face-to-face interaction with a pharmacist in person than a machine. This may decrease the significance of the threat, yet it is still present for the future of pharmacy.
Carrie Tilton
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate, Class of 2017
From reading the Joint Commission of Pharmacy Practitioners 2015 vision statement, it appears that the role of pharmacist is being modified to focus primarily on the medication therapy and wellbeing of patients. I consider this potential modification to be appropriate for the future role of pharmacists since patient care should be the foremost responsibility of pharmacists. Additionally, it is encouraging to think that, as future healthcare professionals, we will oversee patient medication management and help prevent any possible negative medication related outcomes. Accommodating more patient medication outcome-related duties will not only serve to benefit individuals, but will reduce costs if unfavorable health outcomes are avoided. However, I feel that it is important to keep the traditional pharmacist roles while incorporating new responsibilities into the profession.
It is evident that advances in technology will bring about changes to the healthcare profession. However, technological progressions such as the InstyMeds prescription fill machine could be a threat to pharmacists. Such machines would serve to erase some of the duties of pharmacists, and decrease the demand of future pharmacy professionals. Furthermore, there could be problems associated with an automated fill machine. For example, there may be an error in the machine functioning and a patient could receive the wrong medication. Therefore, I feel that patients would be more comfortable having prescriptions filled by an actual person who would be able to recognize any mistakes pertaining to medications.
Kimberly Pullium
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I read the article, and I agree with the mission statement, although I think that the mission statement may not apply to everybody, but I think this mission statement only helps the pharmacy profession grow and become more diverse. I read part of Chris Chu's post and I have to agree with the sentiment that pharmacy is becoming more diverse as a profession and our roles will too, and that this new technology is only going to help pharmacists. I actually really like the fact that pharmacy is growing more diverse as a profession, because that means that the traditional roles will still be there, but that there will be more job opportunities for pharmacists. Just because the focus in the pharmacy community is not on those traditional professional roles does not mean that those traditional professional roles (such as dispensing and working in a community pharmacy) are not still needed. I think this diversity opens up more job opportunities for those who still want to work in a community pharmacy vs. those who want to be specialized. It also allows more job opportunities for those who want to be specialized. Overall the job diversity within the profession of pharmacy is a great thing. Also, I think it is great that technology is becoming more advanced. This will only make the jobs of the pharmacist easier and ensures that the pharmacist does not make careless errors. There will always need to be a pharmacist, no matter how great the technology becomes to ensure that the technology is not making an error, because technology does not have the wherewithal to check itself many times or the compassion to make sure it is not making errors that affect the lives of patients. With the growing future roles of pharmacy this technology does seem threatening because there will be so many more jobs in pharmacy. In both the videos I watched, technology only ensured that the pharmacist was not making careless mistakes and performed tasks that will only help the pharmacist, not take away from the pharmacist profession.
Joseph Helms
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
I think the future of pharmacy is very exciting. I look forward to taking a more hands on approach to medication management with patients as well as more involvement with other healthcare professionals. I think we will be able to use what we learn in school more, especially in a retail setting. I also think that it is good for the profession of pharmacy too. I think our professional image is changing from a “pill counter” to a health care professional that is pharmacologically and clinically minded. I think the current direction we are going can be a cornerstone for independent pharmacy practice. Major retail pharmacies are so profit and cost driven that their work flow does not give time to perform MTM or time to review patient outcomes. I think forcing a pharmacist to do that during a busy work day will not do well. In an independent setting, you can make time to do MTM, counseling, etc. In regards to automation, I believe that it is a threat. I think the biggest problem with the InstyMeds is that it removes the pharmacist/patient relationship. The other problem is that it just makes pharmacy more of a commodity, not healthcare. More and more people expect their drugs NOW and have no idea what is involved in the process. I think it takes the seriousness out of the medications and brings them down to a level of food or vitamins. The profession needs to stand up and go back to its roots and get away from being a commodity based heath service. I also feel that some of the arguments for the InstyMeds are a little weak. I think one of the videos said that 30% of people don’t fill their medictions after leaving the hospital. Well, how many people is 30% and that should be the doctor/pharmacists job to encourage medication adherence. I don’t feel that automation can gurantee that a patient will fill their prescription because there is a filling machine in the office or hospital. Maybe that 30% couldn’t afford to fill it or they just didn’t want to. Internal automation like a counting machine can be helpful though. In a busy pharmacy, having a machine that can fill the most common drugs can save the pharmacist and technicians more time. This time can be devoted to helping patients, answer the phone, or just improving work flow.
Tavie Laws
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
While I am excited about the future of pharmacy, I am also intimidated about it constantly changing and evolving with new health care systems. The fact that I will be knowledgeable enough to help all my patients is very crucial as we move to more of a clinical role in society. We will need to learn to effectively communicate with other practitioners to help achieve an overall healthier community and successfully transition to a more patient-centered care approach.
As far as technology advancements, I am kind of split down the middle. Technology can greatly improve production by catching some computer mistakes, quickly filling common medications, and allowing more time for the pharmacists to interact and counsel patients and check over prescriptions. It can also hinder our profession when things get lost in translation via electronic prescriptions. It can also be more time-consuming waiting on a robot to fill a prescription that could be done by hand in much less time. I have been in a situation when the computer systems have crashed and the pharmacy was basically useless because nothing could be looked up or filled, this would obviously be very detrimental in an emergency situation with a patient so plans need to be established.
Betsy Jones
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
Wingate University Class of 2017
I am excited about where the future of pharmacy practice is heading. I have worked in an independent community pharmacy for the past three years and have been able to see first-hand the need for pharmacists to become more involved in patient care. I believe that in being able to work more with the patient and practitioners, we would be able to help improve many patients health and give them better outcomes. I believe this is the direction that pharmacy is headed and should be headed. If you had asked me a year or so ago, I would have said I wanted to continue with the traditional roles of simply filling medications and counseling patients. However, in the past year, I have come to the conclusion that I believe that my knowledge would be better put to use by being able to directly help the patients that need it. As far as technology is concerned, I believe that it could be a good opportunity to a certain degree. The pharmacy that I work at has a robot that fills the most prescribed medications and labels the bottle for us. It still requires a pharmacist to check behind to be sure everything is filled correctly. I think when less time is having to be spent on things like counting prescriptions, more time can be spent with the patients and counseling them on their medications.
Alyssa Harkey
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
Pharmacy is headed in a whole new direction. It is going more towards patience compliance then it is everything. It is going to be the pharmacists job to make sure the customer is taking the meds. The environment is going to me more team based then anything. We will be working closely with the physicians. The physicians know the medications but the pharmacist may know more precisely what will be best for the patient.
I think it is an exciting change. It will be a lot more like clinical but instead of walking around you will be in a more retail setting. That will definitely be a change but retail can get boring being the same thing over and over again so this will definitely change it up. This will also include a lot more MTM.
I think a robot is a treat if doctor offices have those then patients wont come to a pharmacy. It is one trip and that is it. Same thing goes for the hospital, patients wont need to go to a pharmacy to get those medications that they need.
Becca Giannetti
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
The future of pharmacy is exciting. It will be a good change to get out of the traditional role of the pharmacist and spend more time with patient care. As medication specialist we will be asked to utilize our knowledge to make sure that the patient is taking the right medication, dosage, and number of medications (eliminating duplicates). Our role will increase more and more as the time goes on. As for technology, robotics will help out the pharmacy. It will take away traditional roles from technicians and pharmacist counting activities. Taking away from these roles will give pharmacist more time for patient consult. As technology advances we need to embrace it, and find out role in an ever growing technologically advanced society.
Robert Byrd
All of the signs seem to be pointing us to an expanded scope of practice as pharmacists. Soon pharmacists will be more responsible for patient care than ever before. Not only will be required to continue providing our traditional services involving medications, but we will soon be in charge of administering certain clinical processes, like vaccinations. We will be expected to check behind physicians and ensure the patient is getting the most effective treatments possible. In doing so, it is thought that general health care will increase while costs decrease. Because I have not worked in a pharmacy, I cannot say that I am scared of the change. I am not accustomed to the traditional roles of a pharmacists, so it is not a big adjustment for me. It is not the change that makes me nervous, but what that change means. In any situation where another person's health is under some of my control, I would get nervous. This does not mean that I do not accept the changes, only that I have to be sure I am extremely careful in all aspects of the job. Not only must I check behind myself time and time again when counting pills, but I will have to be cautious about counseling the patient on their drug therapy.
On the other hand, technology makes me very nervous. While it can be a positive thing that could reduce costs and time, it can also be dangerous to pharmacists' job security. I attribute this growing technology to the expanded scope of practice and vice versa. Because machines could just as easily count pills as a human, we need to find something that sets us apart and allows us to become a vital asset to health care. I believe this is why pharmacists are moving to a move clinically based field. The good thing about a pharmacy is that the extra step patients have to take allows them time to digest what they have been told by the doctor. What I mean by this is that patients may think they understand what is going on, but realize after they leave and head to the pharmacy that they have a lot of questions. This allotted time allows them to collect their thoughts so they can speak to a pharmacist. These machines may increase the amount of drugs dispensed, but that definitely does not mean it will increase patient compliance. I think in many situations the pharmacist is the driving force that causes a patient to realize the importance of their medication regime and put it into practice.
Christi Spivey
WUSOP
2017 Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
I am excited to see where pharmacy will go in the upcoming future. I think that giving pharmacist more autonomy and allowing them to broaden their scope of practice can not only benefit the patients they see on a day to day basis but our healthcare system as a whole. I think that giving pharmacist the ability to be a part of the management of patients medications will encourage patients to become more complaint with their medications, resulting in fewer office and hospital visits. Also, pharmacist typically interact with their patients more so than physicians so giving them the ability to change or adjust medications based on their interaction with the patient, I believe could greatly improve their overall health. With this responsibility would also come more education. I could see where many pharmacist, would be against this move in the future because they would not want to be required to go back to school. I personally, think it is a great opportunity for pharmacist to be more involved in the health care team and have more responsibility for the care of the patient.
Kerri Greene
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
I am excited about where pharmacy is heading. Changes in the way drugs are dispensed can give pharmacists more time to focus on other things. Like we have talked about in PharmCare, pharmacists can perform MTM's and counsel patients more with that extra time. I do think with our changing roles we will have to prove ourselves to others as capable of preforming those tasks. I think health care is moving toward team care for patients. This will give patients a more rounded care base that has input from many different types knowledge from many different specialties. This can be very beneficial to patients; which is always our goal in health care.
Wendy Sanchezruiz
PharmD Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I am extremely excited about where pharmacy is headed. I like the fact that we are going to be entitled to more responsibility in the future. As we are learning about MTM in pharm care, it shows us how important and how ever-changing our field is becoming. It is pretty awesome to know that we will contain more patient interaction. It is obvious that this increasing responsibility role could lead to more a little different education, as we can see with students now receiving certifications before they graduate from school. I cannot wait to see what the future holds.
-Taylor Morrisette
One of the reasons why I chose to do pharmacy was because it is a career that is always changing. New drugs are introduced in the market, as well as new plans. However, the role of pharmacists is growing increasingly. Pharmacists are gaining responsibility in the workplace. I am very excited to see where this new path takes the pharmaceutical career. Community pharmacists are performing more consultations and MTMs. Also, pharmacists are becoming more associated with physicians. Regarding technology, pharmacists could use more time. Some machines are used for counting medications and are 99% accurate. I would prefer to have those in more pharmacies. I would not like to have machines that offer medical advice to patients. Most of the time, a patient does not want to read through their patient leaflet. To them, that leaflet is equivalent to a terms and conditions page. If the consultation is face-to-face, patients are more likely to adhere to their medicine regimens. So in a way, some machines are an opportunity and others are a threat.
I think that it's exciting to think about our responsibilities as pharmacists expanding. We learn so much knowledge in school, but in all honesty, we do not get many opportunities to use and hare that knowledge in a community setting. These new roles that we will be taking on will not only give us more learning and application opportunities, but will relieve some of the many duties that other healthcare providers have.
As far as technology, I believe that it is a "double-edged sword". On one hand, it will provide more efficiency in most situations. However, because technology is not bullet-proof, it could lead to less accuracy. We are constantly talking about wanting to be more involved with our patients, but some forms of technology will actually limit our patient interaction.
Kristen Doster
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
I am actually not thrilled about the pharmacy field going more into clinical work. I see this as having a negative impact on pharmacy. By doing more patient care work, it almost takes away from the pharmacist focusing more on the actual medications. Pharmacists go to school in order to learn information about medications to be able to dispense them and know all sorts of interactions and such. Not to become a physician or clinical worker that will diagnose and be the one dealing with the patient's well being. I am not saying that a pharmacist doesn't deal with the patient's care because they definitely do have to discuss medications with patients. It's just that when we get into issues dealing with blood pressure monitoring, measuring body fat, giving immunizations, etc. we start getting into the physician's work which i don't see as necessary.
Edward Plugovoy
WUSOP 2017
I believe that the future of pharmacy is headed toward more involvement with patients and their healthcare issues. Also a more involved role for pharmacists within the healthcare system and as a part of the healthcare team. I am excited for where the future of pharmacy is headed. I believe pharmacists should be more involved with direct patient care since they are experts on the medicines that treat disease states and symptoms.
I believe that technology and robotics will be more of an opportunity than a threat for pharmacists. It will provide the pharmacist with more time to deal directly with patients. Also the machine should be more efficient and accurate in filling prescriptions, but I feel like it should still be checked by a pharmacist. I believe that technology will help to free up some of the pharmacist time for more patient care and reduce the amount of errors. I do not see how a machine could ever replace pharmacists so I do not see any threat from technology.
Justin Ledford
I believe the future of pharmacy is very exciting and moving in the right direction. Working in a retail environment for 7+ years, I think it would be great to get out from behind the pharmacy counter and really get involved with the patiet's health. I have always thought that direct patient care and patient involvement was geared towards hospital pharmacy, but now with MTM coming about and other non-traditional roles, I think all areas of pharmacy will be improved upon. It is a little worrisome to branch away from traditional roles of pharmacists, but change is never easy and I think in this case it will be very beneficial.
Automation is a great thing, in my opinion. I think it improves accuracy as well as convenience for both patients and pharmacists (off site verifying, patient counseling electronically), and there will always be a need for a pharmacist to sign off on the final product. The need for technicians may decline, but I do not think it will effect pharmacists negatively much, if at all.
Nicole Free
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
I think the direction that pharmacy is headed is very exciting. No longer are we going to be considered those people that stand behind the counter and count pills all day. The day that pharmacists are recognized as mandatory healthcare professionals, will be a major table turner in the healthcare system. It is about time that we are recognized for what we do. It is one thing to be able to diagnose somebody and tell them they have some disease, it is another to be able to treat that disease. We treat almost every health related problem with either prescription medication or OTC medications and who knows better about these drugs than a pharmacist. I decided to go to pharmacy school because I want to work in direct patient care. I want to see that my efforts are helping people and I think it is fair to say that a pharmacist should be responsible for the therapeutic outcomes of their patients. I have always believed that there is too much information for one person to know to be able to treat multiple patients. Based on the increasing amounts of specialization, it is safe to say that the majority of people think this way as well. The more collaboration we have between healthcare professionals, the more likely that the patient will have a better outcome. That is what healthcare is all about!
After reading the article I feel optimistic about the career of pharmacy. I get the message that we are growing as a profession and are becoming more respected with more autonomy as a health care profession. It seems like pharmacy is taking more of a clinical role which I think is a good aspect for pharmacy because then we are able to better use all of the information that we learn in pharmacy school. I do not feel threatened by technology because I believe that as technology expands the role of pharmacists will also expand. Technology is good for health care because it cuts down on errors and is typically very reliable. There will also always need to be a pharmacist near by technology to answer any questions, but it takes away the monotonous task that comes with counting out. and labeling pills.
Melissa Janis
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
I think that technology and robotics is a welcomed aspect into the profession of pharmacy. I think that it is inherent that the role of pharmacist and their duties will change and evolve. As machinery becomes more widely used, pharmacists will perform less of the dispensing roles. Although his may be moving away from the traditional role of the pharmacists, I think that it will open up other roles for pharmacists. I do not think that however that machinery should replace face-to-face consultation. Some patients feel more secure getting their medication from an actual person. Additionally, for some individuals, especially for older patients, they may not like the idea of getting their medication from a machine, like InstyMeds. They might find them confusing and impersonal. I think the purpose of machinery should be there just as an option, however, traditional face to face contact should always be the primary way of dispensing medication.
Brenda Simiyu
Wingate University School of Pharmacy 2017
I do not believe in the use of automated dispensing machines. Face-to-face contact between pharmacist-patient is one of the most important relationships that a pharmacy can offer. It creates the rapport that many patients believe in. It is one of the reasons why pharmacist are one of the most trusted professions. Without this pharmacist-patient contact, the patient will not have a chance to be observed. Observation is one of the duties of a pharmacist. When a patient is counseled, a pharmacist can observe for any medication related problems or adverse reactions, which can be in the form of lethargy, apolecia, extrapyramidal symptoms, jaundice, disorientation, etc. This act of observation can catch signs of a patient's health problems, which would lead to reduced inappropriate medication use, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations.
I do not like the idea of Insty Meds auto-dispensing machine because it poses risks of drug safety and technology errors. The Insty Meds machine looks like an ATM-drug to me, but with less protection. I think if would be very easy to rob all the medications insides the machine. On the other hands, besides the papers in which having the numbers that patients need to enter in the machine, there are no more requirements for ID checks, or finger- print check in order to get their medications. Thus, it would leave more rooms of errors for dispensing the wrong medication to wrong patients. I think Insty Meds is helpful at clinical pharmacy setting but not practical in community pharmacy. Although there is a phone set up next to the Insty Med machine for the patient to call the pharmacist if they have any questions, but how many patients remember or want to do that. If those are new patients, the chances are they probably do not know what questions they should ask the pharmacist. If those are patients who already took drugs before, they certainly do not have any questions to ask. I think it would be better for patient health if we have in-person service directly with the pharmacist.
Tram Dang
WUSOP
Pharm.D Candidate 2017
After reading the 2015 vision statement, it appears that the future of pharmacy is headed toward an increased role and responsibility of pharmacists. Pharmacists will provide medication therapy and focus on the well being of the patient versus just filling prescriptions. This role will allow less money to be spent as errors are decreased. It is exciting to know we will be much more involved in helping individual patients improve their quality of life. I do believe it is still important to incorporate the traditional pharmacist role while adding these new responsibilities, because patients will still be comfortable with these roles.
Increasing technology is very helpful and makes our lives easier in so many ways, but I do not think that InstyMed is one of them. There is always the potential for error with technology, and having an actual pharmacist to fill prescriptions will reduce this error, since they will be able to recognize mistakes pertaining to the medication. Many customers will not be satisfied filling their prescription in an automated machine and would like to have the personal face-to-face contact with their pharmacist. I also feel that the elderly population will have the most difficult time with such a machine because many of them do not understand technology and will not like such a change. InstyMed is definitely a threat, as it would decrease the demand for pharmacists. I believe this would be similar to self-checkouts at Walmart, because you lose that personal contact and they take away from somebody being able to obtain a job.
Summer Powell
Doctorate of Pharmacy Candidate
WUSOP Class of 2017
As clearly stated by the article, the profession of pharmacy is growing. The requirements for the pharmacists are becoming more diverse and involved with the patients. This role is becoming more patient-centered and it is a good direction that the field is headed in. We are here, and wanting to be pharmacists, to learn how to improve the health of all around us and help out the best that we can. If these more patient-centered responsibilities become required in all pharmacies, the health of the general public will improve. The pharmacist will be directing their attention to each patient individually to make sure that they are getting the best care possible. While some pharmacists already do do this and have started to apply these patient-centered regulations to their practice, it will be good for it to be an all-around requirement.
It makes me excited that these changes are happening because they are beneficial to the patient. Although it will take up more time on our part and will just add another requirement to do to our job, it will improve the quality of life for our patients greatly. The patients are what we are here for in the first place so it should be exciting to see that changes are being done to take care of our patients even more. This change is a great change that must happen to use our profession in the best way we can.
On the contrary, I'm not sure I like the idea of InstyMed or any of the use of technology for interacting with patients. It just takes away from some of the counseling and the face-to-face interaction with the patient and pharmacist. I think it is more personal to have a pharmacist fill medications than for a machine to. Even if it is more efficient and our society is being more technologically driven now, it is dehumanizing the process of getting medications filled.
If we are geared towards becoming more so health providers rather than pill pushers then the idea of mechanized dispensing is beneficial. Of course, I don't agree with the whole unguarded 'vending machine' idea like InstyMeds. At the pharmacy that I shadowed they had a dispensing machine with the top 200 drugs (not the same as our class) with their most commonly used dosages. The machine automatically filled prescriptions so all the techs needed to do was eject the pills into a bottle, put the label on it, and hand it to the pharmacist for a final check. The machine freed up the pharm techs to fill more prescriptions and man the drive through. It also allowed the Pharmacist to do more things (like MTMs and vaccines) rather than having to find medication, enter piling up prescriptions, count pills, or take over the drive through. No one lost their job because of the machine it just allowed them all to do more effective work as a team and allowed the Pharmacist to have a broader scope of practice in the pharmacy. I agree that we have the ability and the know how to have more responsibility. I think its actually a waste to go through so much training and school to go out into the world to literally be a dispenser and disrespected for that. Granted I know that we do more than that but most professions outside of ours do not realize that and will not until we are able to step up and do more for the healthcare world.
Crissy Negron
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
I think the future of pharmacy as described in the article is based on better patient care with more efficiently and cost effectively. Allowing a pharmacist to speak with the patient and share with them their knowledge about medication therapy not only improves adherence, but improves the efficiency of healthcare.
I do think that community pharmacies are a bit understaffed for all of the counseling and direct patient care activities to take place. So there do need to be more changes when it comes to time expectations for pharmacists. It is already a very busy hectic career at times and if society wants us to take on more of a direct patient care role then other responsibilities are going to have to be sacrificed or passed on to someone else.
When it comes to the instymeds, I do not like the vending machine feel it gives to the profession, but if I was the patient I would like the convenience it provides. I do not think it will catch on and become commonly used just because of the security issues it presents and lack of patient contact it would cause.
Jacob Gibson
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
After reading the JCCP article, I believe that the roles pharmacists play are going to increase. Reading the 2015 vision statement is very exciting. I love the way that pharmacist's roles in the community will be better. It is going to show the community that we are not just "pill counters". That stereotype is getting very old. I really like the way that the article states that by 2015 pharmacists will become the most trusted healthcare professionals with an accessible source of medications. I like the way that pharmacists will be able to collaborate with other healthcare professionals. It shows that we can all interact without feeling superior. It will increase the pharmacist's scope of practice as well. Giving pharmacists more responsibility will show the public that we can do more than what they just see. Helping patients with MTM's is a great start to showing how pharmacists are involved in direct patient care. Community pharmacists need to incorporate this more into their job description.
As for robotics, I believe that they are a threat. If we have robots that count pills what will happen to the job availability for pharmacy technicians? There won't be as many jobs available because the job description for techs will be to just feed prescriptions into the computer and answer the phone. As a community, I believe we rely on technology too much. What will happen to us if the power goes out or the internet crashes. We won't be able to function. Although technology is very helpful, we need to detract it from the pharmacy. The InstyMeds is a horrible idea. I agree that the patient will be able to get their medications faster than at a pharmacy, but what about if the medication they are looking for is not in the machine? Also, elderly patients may not understand how to use the machine. The pharmacist isn't there to counsel you or check the drug to make sure it's correct. You don't get that pharmacist-patient interaction as you would at the pharmacy. Also, what if someone tries to break into the machine? It's just like an ATM machine. Drugs cost a lot of money. It's basically going to be a brand new prize for thieves and robbers. It's just a horrible idea. One more thing. Will the machine be able to dispense scheduled drugs and how will the DEA check that? At the pharmacy, we log all of the information and the DEA comes and regulates it. What will they do with the machine? It also eliminates the need for a pharmacist. Again, it just a bad idea.
Ashmira Patel
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
One of the reasons I chose pharmacy is described exactly by this topic of discussion. I thrive in expanding my knowledge and I know the future of pharmacy will nourish that. It excites me that the field is expanding. I believe it will help us to complete our ultimate goal as pharmacists, to help improve people's way of life. Change can always be a little scary. Pharmacist's role will be altered, especially with the aid of advanced technology. However, these changes will allow us to better lives and be utilized even greater. It will be interesting to see where pharmacy is in ten years.
Monica White
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
I'm excited about where pharmacy is headed in the future years as outlined by the article. As for robotics I’m not as excited.
The article states “Pharmacists will have the authority and autonomy to manage medication therapy and will be accountable for patients’ therapeutic outcomes. In doing so, they will communicate and collaborate with patients, care givers, health care Professionals, and qualified support personnel.” If you have a machine dispensing medications then how a pharmacist can be accountable for the patients therapeutic outcomes and how can pharmacists establish a communication with the patient to collaborate with them regarding their medication use and management? There are many other questions that technology such as this brings up. If a patient dies after having a drug that’s dispensed from the machine then who will take the blame for it? Without a pharmacist checking dosages and interactions it could be a threat to the patient’s life. Perhaps some other forms of technology alongside a pharmacist would work better. If the machine was used by a pharmacist to dispense drugs then it would allow the pharmacist to double check dosage, drug interactions and adverse effects based on patient records. That might be a more convenient and safe future than patients getting their own medication without knowing what to expect.
Pooja Duggaraju
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
WUSOP
The profession of pharmacy is making great progression towards becoming more patient care oriented. This aspect of the future of pharmacy is exciting. Every year new drugs emerge, which leads to more opportunity for interactions and sloppy prescribing to actually bring harm to the patient. The future of pharmacy is working towards breaking that by making sure each individual's medications serve in the patient's best interest. This overall makes pharmacists whole line of work more efficient and effective. However, the idea of technology and robotics does not excite me at all. I most certainly see it as a threat. It's impersonal, takes jobs out of the pharmacy (like we need anything to contribute to unemployment rates), and is not guaranteed to make any less mistakes than a human. It may be faster, but can still miscount or fill the entirely wrong drug. The whole concept really just opens up the door to a stream of issues.
Taylor Peterman
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
When looking ahead to the future of pharmacy, it is clear many technological advances are being made to further diversify our field. Though this may seem frightening that technology has the potential to take over some of our roles as pharmacists, it actually appears to be a positive thing. With the invention of these machines to do the pill counting for us, pharmacists now have more time to provide more effective direct patient care. Having more time to build trust and relationships with patients is vital to improve compliance and therefore the patients health. With this added personal time with the patient, I believe we could be back on top as the most trust profession.
While these technology advances are exciting, it is also important to consider their potential downfalls. With patient medication being dispersed by a machine, complete reliance is being given that the medication, dosage and even the patient is correct. There is no pharmacist to be on the look out for any of these potential mistakes. While this machine dispensing may be more convenient for the patient at the time, it may be causing harm in the long run if they are missing out on counseling.
Jordan Grubb
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
The future of pharmacy has a mixture of good and bad aspects. The good aspects are those that involve pharmacists becoming more involved with their patients and having more recognition when it comes to managing patient medications. I believe the bad aspects are when technology is introduced into the dispensing process. Some methods of technology have been useful but others seem as if they allow for more error to be introduced into the dispensing process. Take the InstyMeds dispensing mechanism; it reminds me of going to Redbox to get a movie. Such a method of dispensing medications introduces greater error in the dispensing process by way of mechanical and human error. The human error may arise from those that are stocking the machine or labeling the medication (i.e. misplaced barcodes). The mechanical error may arise from different malfunctions within the mechanism. Nothing is perfect, humans or machines, and that is why I believe when certain methods of technology are introduced within the pharmacy field we should precede with caution. I mean what's next....a computerized pharmacist within the InstyMeds computer system that counsels the patient while dispensing the medications?
Kim Coe
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
I think that the vision for pharmacy practice to have more roles will be exciting and will give us more opportunities to do more. I think that the idea of technology and robotics is more of a threat than an opportunity. I think that technology could be used to benefits in some areas of medicine but does not always achieve those benefits such as the idea of the machine from InstyMeds. I think that this machine could impose some serious dangers with safety. These safety problems include punching in the wrong number for your prescription, getting the wrong medicine and just trusting the machine, getting the wrong dosage form, and this could be an invitation for people to break into the machine to steal medicine. Since the medicine is already pre-packaged it could potentially waste a lot of medicine in the process if the patient doesn’t need to take all of it or the patient could take too much of the medicine because they did not read the prescription to take “X” amount of tablets. Not only does this pose a risk to patients but it could also make patients frustrated, as they don’t feel like they are getting patient centered care as it becomes so impersonal with a machine. This also poses a question with insurance. If the patient wants to know how much their insurance covers the prescription how exactly is the machine going to tell them. I think this machine will downgrade the way that people will at pharmacists because they won’t see us as directly interacting with patients as they pick up their medication.
Kelly Fuhrmann
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
The 2015 Vision article from the joint Commission of Pharmacy Practitioners reveals an expanded role for pharmacists. This proposal will indeed benefit the society, especially patients whose lives depend on how their medications are managed. While this is an exciting and new opportunity for pharmacists, the downside to this great opportunity is that, more responsibility usually comes with more liability.
Taking on more responsibility means that we are in the front lines of care and would be held more liable based on patient outcomes. A pharmacist may possibly be probed or queried if something goes wrong with a patient under their direct care. But having said that, the chances of things going wrong is very limited since pharmacists are indeed, experts in drug therapy.
While many professions have been affected by technology and robotics, I believe that the use of robotics will enhance our profession. Without a doubt, there is no substitute for pharmacy education. A robot may not be able to tell that there is drug interaction amongst Mrs B’s prescriptions. Clearly, someone still needs to be the prescription watchdog to ensure that the correct medication is prescribed as well as the correct dosage dispensed. In the end, all the robots can do, is to follow directions and probably will not have the intrinsic instinct and intelligence that comes with intense pharmacy training.
Adaobi Obika
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
Class of 2017
As the profession grows, more diverse paths will emerge that will provide future pharmacists with new career paths. Our roles will be different which will allow us to be more competitive and also give the patient the level of care they need. I believe that robotics will allow us more time with counseling the patient and also allow us to better serve more patients. I do think that jobs in community pharmacy will drop off, but with expanding roles in hospital pharmacy I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.
Mitch Speer
It might be worth pointing out, as well, that as pharmacist roles/expectations increase, so will the expectations of pharmacy technicians and assistants. For example, if the pharmacist is supposedly going to spend all their time with patients, and no time with the medications they dispense to ensure quality control, then that becomes the job of the technician (whether that technician is watching a robot for errors or dispensing by hand).
Will we then decide to offer a technician degree? It appears we are moving pharmacists into a higher degree of responsibility and education, so why, then, do we assume we will have the technician workforce to support us as pharmacists? I personally have heard of Walgreens that already have the pharmacist stationed in the waiting areas, with the patients, and they check product dispensing via images from the technician in the filling area. I do not trust this system, and I do not think I trust another person to be the last person to see the bottle and medicine before it goes into the bag and out to the patient. That's ultimately my responsibility, so I have very big problems with giving my license and title over to the hands of another person or machine.
That may sound harsh, but it is the reality of the situation. I do not trust machines or other people to do the job that I have gone to school and gotten a well earned degree to be able to do.
Rebecca English
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I am very excited about the direction where pharmacy profession is going. Pharmacy profession is becoming more and more patient oriented, therefore, pharmacists will no longer be accountable to be only "pill counters." According to the document from Joint Commission of Pharmacy Practice, pharmacist practice will be more patient centered in 2015 compared to current practice. It will allow pharmacist to access to manage their patients' medication management and accountable for communicating with their patients, patients' care taker, physicians, or other health care professionals.
After visiting InstyMeds website and watching their videos, I feel that it is threat to pharmacists and opportunity for patients. InstyMeds are threat to pharmacist because I believe that it is replacing the role of pharmacist, because as a pharmacist you can interact with patients on how to take medication by enacting for certain patients, whereas InstyMeds prevent that interaction. InstyMeds is an opportunity for patient because they can get their medications readily via machine, which is so quick and convenient. InstyMeds could reduce the work load for pharmacist, and allow more time to interact with patient via telephone, but sometimes it makes difference in interaction when pharmacist is present front of the patient physically. Therefore I find there is limitation in using InstyMeds because there are pros and cons.
Shruti S. Desai
PharmD Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I am very excited about the direction where pharmacy profession is going. Pharmacy profession is becoming more and more patient oriented, therefore, pharmacists will no longer be accountable to be only "pill counters." According to the document from Joint Commission of Pharmacy Practice, pharmacist practice will be more patient centered in 2015 compared to current practice. It will allow pharmacist to access to manage their patients' medication management and accountable for communicating with their patients, patients' care taker, physicians, or other health care professionals.
After visiting InstyMeds website and watching their videos, I feel that it is threat to pharmacists and opportunity for patients. InstyMeds are threat to pharmacist because I believe that it is replacing the role of pharmacist, because as a pharmacist you can interact with patients on how to take medication by enacting for certain patients, whereas InstyMeds prevent that interaction. InstyMeds is an opportunity for patient because they can get their medications readily via machine, which is so quick and convenient. InstyMeds could reduce the work load for pharmacist, and allow more time to interact with patient via telephone, but sometimes it makes difference in interaction when pharmacist is present front of the patient physically. Therefore I find there is limitation in using InstyMeds because there are pros and cons.
Shruti S. Desai
PharmD Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I am very excited about the new changes in pharmacy. We will not only be leaders in the pharmacy but more so in the medical world. I would be disappointed if I graduated and knew that the pharmaceutical world was stagnant. As far as robotics in the pharmacy, I am unsure if it's a good or bad thing. I understand that it cuts fill time, but when they mess up all that fill time comes back. Also, I am worried that if they can replace techs, will they be able to replace pharmacists in the very far future. I want job security and if a robot can take my job from me then maybe I should look into a specialty so that my security is more....secure.
Matthew Ryan Quick
WUSOP
DoPC2017
The future of pharmacy seems very promising and exciting. When I graduate I am looking for to a new and expanded role in the medical force. I am mostly hopeful that pharmacy as a whole will gain more respect from other medical personnel as our roles increase. There are a few negatives as pharmacists and medical doctors will have opposing ideas and this will cause complications in patient care. I am hesitant about the instymeds machine for several reasons. Firstly there will be decreased person to person contact and a decrease in respect for pharmacists. Also there is a huge increase in security as the instymeds is essentially a vending machine to steal.
Chris Murphy
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
After reading ACCP's 2015 mission statement, I am encouraged that there is a movement toward increasing patient care. Because of this push towards greater pharmaceutical care, the patients will be greatly affected in a positive way; there will be better patient compliance, less drug related accidents (overuse, underuse, or misuse), and it will be more cost effective. While I think changes like this are good for pharmacy, I think that too much change can be a bad thing. Some are calling for pharmacist's roles to expand even further than this, where pharmacists would potentially have prescribing privileges one day. In my opinion, this is a dangerous move because once you start to cross over into other fields of work, conflict emerges. It is best to keep things simple and effective, and not to over-complicate them.
As far as the idea of InstyMeds, I am not a big fan of this. Even though it provides a convenient and quick way to pick up your medicine, it opens up Pandora's box to a whole new realm of problems. Personally, I would rather put my trust in someone who has been through four years of rigorous schooling than a robot. I can actually see my pharmacist process and fill my prescription, whereas I have to just trust that the machine is doing a the job right. In addition, it also opens up another option for criminals to gain access to drugs. It would be relatively easy to rob someone at one of these machines or steal the machine itself.
Trent Tysinger
WUSOP, Class of 2017
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
The future of pharmacy is changing everyday with technological advancements and also vast changes in the traditional pharmacy position. I think these changes are an overall positive benefit to the career field and also the medical field. The idea of having automated dispensing machines can be looked at as a benefit and also something that could positively have a negative impact. I think that “Insty Meds” is a great way to save time dispensing some specific medications but not all medications. I think that placing it outside for patients to use and receive medications…is a problematic idea. I think this will bring pharmaceuticals to a level to that such as a red box movie. Medications should be respected and treated in a safe manner. Putting the machine behind the counter for professionals to use would help save some time for more important issues. As the career field changes and pharmacist become more of a clinical practice, I think that these machines can help with freeing up the pharmacist to do things involved with therapy management, etc…
Charles Whisnant
WUSOP, class of 2017
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
Pharmacy is ever changing, which is something I find intriguing about it. I think the future of pharmacy is heading toward direct patient care and being clinically based, which will require mandatory residency for all pharmacists. I think it’s great that pharmacy is expanding its scope of practice. I look forward to working more closely with patients to see improvement with their quality of life.
The advancement of technology and robotics in pharmacy does provide an opportunity for both patients and pharmacists; however, I do not think that they are necessary. It makes it easier to dispense medication to patients; however, there is always that chance of error. It’s still necessary to have a pharmacist to check the prescription to make sure that there were no errors made down the line. Also, using machines to dispense medication allows for people to steal medication like they do with money from ATM machines. On the mechanical aspect, there is always a chance that the machine would malfunction and need repairing, which could slow down the process of receiving medications. I think it’s best to have face-to-face interactions because it allows for objective and subjective probing as well as checking for errors.
Sheng Vue
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
The future of pharmacy is exciting but scary as well. I think the overall care will improve as we gain provider status, however on the same side the amount that a “robot” is being able to do could hurt the trust that patients have in a pharmacist. A pharmacist is known as the “first access to healthcare” where we are the most accessible healthcare provider available. If we changed to the “robot” system would this stay the same? I don’t believe so. A robot cannot replace a pharmacist. Such as, if an individual comes in with a question about their rash on the ankle how would you see this through a webcam? Would you be providing the ultimate healthcare possible? I don’t believe so. I believe we need to reform our future but in a way that puts the patients first.
Jared Frye
There is no doubt that technology can be very useful in a lot of ways. For example, bar code technology has helped reduced a lot of errors associated with miss-filled drugs. Additionally, omnicells, pyxis, baker cell, drug cassettes and robots have also helped expedite dispensing of drugs both in community and institutional pharmacies. With that in mind, it is fair to say that the introduction of other new technologies in the practice of pharmacy is inevitable. Some of these technologies will eliminate some positions whiles others will create positions as well. In all, it is not really a matter of if but is just a matter of when, so we just have to be ready for whatever comes our way.
However, the introduction of instyMed is clearly a disaster waiting to happen. If problems associated with faulty equipment are put aside, the possibility of prescriber error is not going to be addressed by these machines. If a prescriber makes an error on a prescription such as dosing errors, pharmacist are normally able to catch those errors and get in touch with the prescriber to rectify the problem. With instyMed, there is no way the machine is going be able to catch prescribing or dosing errors. This is just one example of possible problems with technologies such as instyMed.
I think the future of pharmacy in regards to the InstyMeds machine is a little discouraging. The use of the machine takes away from the personal interaction required in pharmaceutical care. As we are learning in our courses the future of pharmacy is leaning toward the idea of pharmaceutical care. The machine takes away from the major components of pharmaceutical care because it forces the patient toward the idea of self-care, similar to OTC drugs. This idea of self-care defeats the purpose of the pharmacist professional and diminishing the opportunity to give professional advice about specific drug therapies.
Roslen Bell
WUSOP Class 2017
There is no doubt that technology can be very useful in a lot of ways. For example, bar code technology has helped reduced a lot of errors associated with miss-filled drugs. Additionally, omnicells, pyxis, baker cell, drug cassettes and robots have also helped expedite dispensing of drugs both in community and institutional pharmacies. With that in mind, it is fair to say that the introduction of other new technologies in the practice of pharmacy is inevitable. Some of these technologies will eliminate some positions whiles others will create positions as well. In all, it is not really a matter of if but is just a matter of when, so we just have to be ready for whatever comes our way.
However, the introduction of instyMed is clearly a disaster waiting to happen. If problems associated with faulty equipment are put aside, the possibility of prescriber error is not going to be addressed by these machines. If a prescriber makes an error on a prescription such as dosing errors, pharmacist are normally able to catch those errors and get in touch with the prescriber to rectify the problem. With instyMed, there is no way the machine is going be able to catch prescribing or dosing errors. This is just one example of possible problems with technologies such as instyMed.
The future of pharmacy both excites me and makes me nervous. This future of pharmacy is slowly moving away from the traditional role of the pharmacist. Their scope of practice will be expanding. A pharmacist will be able to share knowledge with the patient and counsel them as needed. This counseling could be very beneficial to a patient.
In today’s world, technology is every growing and very important. I believe that machines like InstyMeds can both help and hurt. Technology like InstyMeds can dispense more efficiently. Machines inside of the pharmacy can leave more time for the pharmacist to do things like counsel. On the other hand, technology is subject to error. Human error and machine error can occur with these machines.
Courtney Harrell
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
I feel strongly against the impersonal nature of receiving a service from a machine. To me, we are providing a service and care about the healthcare of our patients. A machine cannot care for someone. A machine does not provide pharmaceutical care in the true nature of the definition. The thought processes, counseling, interaction, recommendations, and multiple checks involved in a traditional role of pharmacists cannot be replaced. Also, a machine doesn’t know of adherence issues with a patient and ask the patients questions and reading their nonverbal mannerisms that provide important information. Lastly, I think more people would be willing to rob a machine than a pharmacist.
Kristin Payne
WUSOP Candidate 2017
I believe that the future of pharmacy is very exciting. Yes a machine can never replace a real human being but technology is awesome if it can help pharmacists work more efficiently. With a good balance of technology, the future of pharmacy looks pretty great. For instance, machines can help pharmacists do their job better. Machines that count pills is a great innovation. Banks have machines that count their money. However, pharmacists should not be solely dependent on this and if time allows, should double check the counting, especially with drugs that have higher risks. Technology such as this that can help make pharmacists more efficient sounds great. However, when it comes to cutting out the pharmacist and directly giving patients medicine through a machine is something to be avoided. As Trent pointed out in class, it makes medicine seem less serious, it may sometimes resemble a candy machine. However, I am open to having a machine for customers who come in regularly to get the same prescription. I would recommend having it in the pharmacy by the pharmacist desk, this way when pharmacists have made the prescription ahead of time in anticipation of the patient they can store it in this machine, and maybe send out an email to this regular patient informing them that their prescription is ready. I don't believe machines should be the sole use of medicine dispensing, and I believe it may be beneficial for certain medications, and only certain customers. Either way, it's a great idea and I don't think that the idea should be cut out but it does require a lot of thought from many different angles.
Mimi Le
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
-Michael Crawford
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
This topic was very interesting to me. My initial reaction was that this immerging technology is a direct threat to the future of the pharmacy profession as we know it. I thought this because (as is human nature) people fear change and the uncertain future. However, after some consideration, and considerable discussion, my opinion shifted somewhat. I began to realize that this could be used as a tool (LIMITED SCOPE TOOL!) that could help us dispense simple drugs that need very little counselling like antibiotics. This should in no way be viewed as the new model which pharmacy is moving towards, but it can be incorporated in a new model of the future of pharmacy in which we are able to focus more time on pharmaceutical care and less time just simply dispensing.
One more note on this, I feel that the scope of this should be VERY limited and it should also only be placed in a pharmacy (I am not a fan of the phone-a-pharmacist system).
The future of pharmacy as described in the 2015 Vision Statement is very exciting. It is great that the profession of pharmacy is looking to become more patient-centered and have a broader scope. It is also great that these changes could mean more respect from other healthcare professionals. With increased roles as pharmacists, the million dollar question now is where are pharmacists going to find free time? One company who thinks they have an answer to this is Instymeds. Instymeds is an automatic vending machine that will fill a prescription without a human being there with it. This could free time for pharmacists, but would it be effective? I think not. Although this technology is great, it is only a machine. Without a doubt, it will mess up and it will cause problems. It could run into issues with billing insurance claims, detecting drug interactions, and seeing prescription problems. Although an automated pharmacy seems ideal in today’s world, it is not ideal at all. Too many problems would arise from it.
Andrea Huneycutt
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
For the future of pharmacy, I have mixed opinions. I feel that with the technological advancements and installments of technology in the pharmacy setting could potentially help the field. The pharmacist could have more time for counseling and individual time with each patient. This could be a positive impact on the field of pharmacy; compliance could increase for those patients that do spend time with the pharmacist. I believe there are more negative effects caused from technology, specifically InstyMeds. The pharmacists is another way for prescriptions to be double-checked; without the pharmacist more errors can occur with dispensing and drug interactions. There can be an error with the prescription of a drug that only a pharmacist could catch. If a physician mixes up the names of two different drugs, a pharmacist can catch the mistake and call to double-check the intent of the physician. The computerized system does not have the ability to do that. There could also be interactions with the drug that is prescribed by the physician that they are unaware of or simply forget. The pharmacist is trained to recognize and fix problems with drug-drug interactions and they can, again, call the physician to suggest a solution. I believe that the InstyMeds system can cause more problems than benefit for both pharmacists and the patients.
Maegan Wells
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate
I think the future of pharmacy is improving all the time, but with advancements, also comes challenges. I have mixed feelings about the future of pharmacy. I am excited, but nervous at the same time. I am excited about incorporating more clinical services in the pharmacy, because I think this allows the patient to receive optimal care from all healthcare professionals. The future of pharmacy is constantly changing, and technology is becoming a bigger part of our jobs. This can easily become a threat or an opportunity. Technology can make our jobs more efficient, but it can also create problems. Potentially having an InstyMeds machine could free up more time for a pharmacist to take part in clinical services to their patients. The down side would be if the machine malfunctioned in any sort of way. This could consequently cause more problems than benefits. Overall, I don’t think technology is a big threat to our profession, because I don’t think it will catch on very quickly. I don’t think our profession should be compared to, or replaced by a robot.
Jordan Richmond
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
Wingate University School of Pharmacy
I was pretty indifferent about the robotics as it concerns our profession, thinking it was more of an opportunity than threat. I don’t believe it is neither harmful nor as beneficial as InstyMeds is making it seem in their video clips (hilarious acting on some). I don’t think a machine will ever completely take over pharmacists’ jobs.
I think the future of pharmacy is heading in a different direction, with traditional roles becoming more complex or taken on by machines. Pharmacists will become a more of an important figure than now, because MTM and more intimate counseling will take place with patients.
I do believe the machines are more beneficial for patients who live in an area where the Urgent Care is closest to them, but far away from a hospital or pharmacy. Therefore, robots dispensing medications in that setting would alleviate some of the patient’s burden. I still can’t see all types of medications being dispensed; just certain antibiotics or something that isn't easily abused. I think only time can tell, as technology progresses, if these will be beneficial or detrimental. As of now, I don’t think they are harmful.
As for the current technology development, it is critical and undeniable that new technologies or machines play important roles into the people’ life and also health-care profession career. In fact, computure program or other technologies allow pharmacists keep detailed electronic patient records or patient’s drug provide, so that pharmacist has more time to couseling patient. However, I doubt machine can ever replace the positions of a physician, a pharmacist or even a nurse. Many times when we talk about healthcare career, the first word that comes to our mind is “caring,” that is something a machine can never be able to achieve. For example, looking at the InstanMed machine, it does have limitations such as only dispenses pre-built drugs as well as needs pharmacist attention. On the other hand, I also see the disadvantage if patient use machines to get their medicines. Patients do not want to spend time for reading information on screen of machines, which guide patient about how to use medications, adverse reactions, or warning when combining with other food, drink or drug.
Thuy Nguyen
WUSOP
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
I feel like the Instymed robot dispenser can have both positive and negative effects on the future of pharmacy. It could have positive effects because it can lighten the workload of the pharmacist, which could enable them to have more time for MTM and helping patients with therapy outcomes. They would also need a pharmacist to maintain the machine and make sure the drugs are in the correct cells. Also, there could be instances where patients have issues with their insurance covering the medication that comes out of the machine, and a pharmacist would be useful in solving that situation. On the other hand, the machine could put the thought into patients mind that pharmacists aren’t important since a robot can do the job. It would also desensitize patients to the seriousness of the medications just because it comes from a vending machine.
Jamie Warren
WUSOP Candidate of Pharmacy 2017
There is no doubt that technology can be very useful in a lot of ways. For example, bar code technology has helped reduced a lot of errors associated with miss-filled drugs. Additionally, omnicells, pyxis, baker cell, drug cassettes and robots have also helped expedite dispensing of drugs both in community and institutional pharmacies. With that in mind, it is fair to say that the introduction of other new technologies in the practice of pharmacy is inevitable. Some of these technologies will eliminate some positions whiles others will create positions as well. In all, it is not really a matter of if but is just a matter of when, so we just have to be ready for whatever comes our way.
However, the introduction of instyMed is clearly a disaster waiting to happen. If problems associated with faulty equipment are put aside, the possibility of prescriber error is not going to be addressed by these machines. If a prescriber makes an error on a prescription such as dosing errors, pharmacist are normally able to catch those errors and get in touch with the prescriber to rectify the problem. With instyMed, there is no way the machine is going be able to catch prescribing or dosing errors. This is just one example of possible problems with technologies such as instyMed.
Upon watching the video on the Instymeds website, I was almost amused. Nevertheless, while I don't think that this form of automation has the potential to completely eliminate the need for pharmacists, I feel that it does possibly reflect a dangerous sentiment that some people in the healthcare field may feel. Automation could not effectively replace pharmacists, but if it somehow did, patient care would suffer greatly. Another issue would be that these machines would be particularly susceptible to robbery as it would only require some rope and a truck to make off with tons of scheduled medications.
Michael Russell
Doctor of Pharmacy Candidate 2017
WUSOP
Post a Comment