Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Steve G But you still need a pharmacist with an ACT because the scripts have to be clinically checked by the pharmacist.
I don't see ACTs as a threat, I see them as giving me some freedom and the oppurtunity to do things like MURs and warfarin clinics. In fact, the less checking I do (accuracy checking, not clinical checks), the better. I didn't train for five years to check that Mrs Muggings has got the bendroflumethazide 2.5mg her script asked for. And as for checking nomads and manrex, that's definitely the less the better. |
Yeah I completely agree, but I think as a proffesion we need to be more ready to accept greater roles like murs, clinics etc. Otherwise why pay a pharmacist more when they could just employee an ACT for a much lower wage...