Talk:Pharmacist

Spelling mistake in opening paragraph

"provding" s/b "providing"; someone please make the change, thanks. 174.6.108.183 (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Physicians diagnose, Pharmacists prescribe

in a retail pharmacy as a pharmacy technician I was told by a recently graduated (PharmD) co-worker that originally the physician would diagnose a condition and then the decision of the proper medication was up to the pharmacist (the patient would take a note bearing the Dx by the MD to the RPh who would then assertain the proper medication and dosage and then dispense same), somewhere along the line the paper with the diagnosis changed to a paper with an order of what exactly to dispense (he said it was basically a power-grab by the MD's). He said that this is ideally how the patient-physician-pharmacist relationship should work but that it is now (at least in the USA) perversed except in some hospital and clinical settings where the RPh will participate (basically at-par) with the MD in decision making of treating the patient. Is this true? Can it be added to the history section of the article if referrenced properly (assuming it is true)? I thought this was kind of interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.76 (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"in some hospital and clinical settings where the RPh will participate (basically at-par) with the MD in decision making of treating the patient. Is this true?" No, not even remotely. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)BY MALULEKE SYDNEY FROM DUMELA VILLAGE[reply]

Do NOT combine with pharmacist entirely

I see a note that this combination has been proposed. Although a Dispensing Chemist and a Pharmacist is essentially the same thing in the United States, it seems to me that the variation in usage in the different English speaking countries is widespread enough to justify a small article. There should be a note, explaining that the words refer to the same profession, but also discussing the differences in usages and their historic derivation. Although Pharmacist, Chemist, Druggist, and even Apothecary, are currently all used interchangeably in the U.S., this has not been the case throughout history, and may not be the case across the English speaking world where differences in law, licensing, and practice may have brought shades of meaning. Even if all this ground is covered in a single grand article, a stub explaining this should be left, in my view.

I am in favour of the merge from Dispensing chemist. I think a normal redirect will be sufficient if the content is moved here.--Boson 00:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on education

My sister's currently in the pharmacy program at Drake. As I understand it she has to complete a four year under graduate program (she's a senior this year). Then there's three more years beyond that, followed by an internship. And because its a combined program, I think the senior year the students have both undergrad and grad classes. I'm not sure how the rest of the programs here in the US are structured, if they're similar to Drake's or not. So if what I had down isn't accurate, please feel free to change it.

Thanks
172.173.40.40 23:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Persistent link spamming

There are one or more spammers hitting this (and other drug-related) pages persistently from the 80.58.* IP range.

my two cents

Every state and province has a licensing body of pharmacists. In my province, it's the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association, but I think the term, Collge of Pharmacists, is more common in both sides of the border. These licensing bodies can grant licenses and produce bylaws and regulations. The use of words like, pharmacist, dispensing chemist, druggist, etc., are regulated by these organizations. Only those who are registered with these organization can call themselves pharmacists. The postnominal, R.Ph., really doesn't have any meaning because if one can call himself a pharmacist, he must be registered. There is no unregistered pharmaist. The use of this postnominal is to identify that the person is a pharmacist. It's pretty much same as using M.D. for medical doctors or R.N. for nurses.

Yea no kidding... have you ever worked in a pharmacy? EVEN IN THE RETAIL setting there are TONS OF TIMES when the pharmacists expertise played out and saved peoples lives... I've seen it happen countless times. So before you bash them, do some real research first.

Besides, they are there for a CHECKS AND BALANCES type of relationship... hence the reason why Physicians can't dispense on a large scale, and pharmacists can't prescribe on a large scale (unless supervised or in some states on the small scale without supervision). Physicians make mistakes all the time... they don't know half of the drugs out there.... they limit their prescribing to habitual uses of medications that seem to work for their patients.... This is all changing due to computers and such, but even still... 2 opinions are better than one... If a pharmacist doesn't think a medication is the best for you, he/she can get it changed to something that they think is better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.81.93 (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacists are there to help. They have to go through a rigorous academic program, and although they might not have to use much of this academic knowledge in retail pharmacy for a majority of the time, they will have the ability to answer questions or clarify answers that doctors may or may not have provided to us, the patients. As in any profession, there exists a spectrum of quality amongst pharmacists.

- Pharmacists are drug healthcare professionals. Pharmacists in the UK spend a hefty amount of time at university specifically studying drugs. Doctors prescribe, but pharmacists specialise in patient reviews and drug courses. Pharmacists consult with doctors in hospitals and recommend certain drugs to prescribe certain patients. Some pharmacists specialise in certain diseases, giving them knowledge far beyond that of a doctor when it comes to patient care. You're talking about machines dispensing and advising -- why don't machines diagnose too? Conflicting symptoms? Bullshit. The machine could ask a variety of questions to seperate the factors and even take samples (such as saliva) and automatically put that in a box to be posted to a lab where it could be tested and the patient could be contacted regarding the results. In the event of a referral, the computers could cross-reference nearby specialists and refer the patient. What's the main downside of all of this? No professional advise, lack of expertise, and oversimplification of patient care. People who think pharmacists spend their time packing boxes and sticking labels are fucking retarded. Schizmatic 19:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I apparently deleted your last comment, but somebody put it back. It was completely unintentional. Since it was the last entry, I suspect a software glitch, though I may have done something wrong.

- - Pharmacists are trained in the appropriate use of medication for specific patients with specific conditions. When a patient has multiple disease states and multiple physicians it is often only the pharmacist who can recognize drug interactions and therapy duplications. Pharmacists are also educated to recognize the most important counseling points to discuss with patients to maximize their drug therapy based on the patient's specific case, rather than just read aloud computer generated generalized information. Alerting physicians to overlooked drug allergies and improper dosing of drugs is also a role of a pharmacist. Most pharmacy school programs include at least 2 semesters of full-time externship (clinical rotations) in the final year of the curriculum. This is in addition to the intern hours students acquire during the summers and after-school. The salary of a pharmacist is directly related to the cost of education required, the high level of stress and liability, and the shortage of others choosing to take on the role. Pharmacists are professionals. Like other professionals they are entitled to exercise judgement as to what medication they feel is appropriate to dispense. Lawyers and medical doctors have a choice when it comes to what client or patient they want to defend or treat. Pharmacists are also entitled to this choice. Pharmacists could not be replaced with a computer any more than a doctor could be replaced with a computer program that analyzed lab tests and symptoms then used a flow chart to determine the diagnosis and the first line treatment.66.189.233.206 09:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> patient has multiple disease states and multiple physicians it is often only the pharmacist who can recognize drug interactions and therapy duplications

Computers can probably do just as well...

> Alerting physicians to overlooked drug allergies

Again computers can probably do it automatically these days

> Most pharmacy school programs include at least 2 semesters of full-time externship (clinical rotations) in the final year of the curriculum. This is in addition to the intern hours students acquire

Doing what? Counting pills?

> Pharmacists could not be replaced with a computer any more than a doctor could be replaced with a computer program that analyzed lab tests and symptoms

Why not? Doctors obviously can't be replaced (yet...). Pharmacists, on the other hand can be. They just don't want to admit that dispensing machines, where if you insert in your prescription (we'd probably need ID you, but your prescription info might be able to be downloaded automatically), it will automatically fill it out. I believe the technology is here, just there are a lot of people who'd be out of their jobs (and probably a big lobby in capital hill...).

Inconsistency in History section

The section refers to ancient China. However, all historical references linked within the section are examples of Japanese history. If Chinese history was the intent, find more appropriate supporting links. If Japanese history is actually intended, please update. I don't know which is correct, so I'm not changing anything right now. -- Gnoitall (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]