dysphagia and alendronic acid??

[hibernia]

I agree, and I think this can create a 'jobsworth' image.

+1

Most doctors neither know or care that drugs even need a licence, and as for telling them that there are licenced and unlicenced doses and indications, even for the same drug made by different companies...

Some pharmacists tend to see the drug rather than the patient, but most doctors look at the patient and not the drug. Of course the ideal is to match the patient to the drug and to have BOTH a doctor and a pharmacist involved in the CHOICE of treatment.

[bobbin]

+1

Most doctors neither know or care that drugs even need a licence, and as for telling them that there are licenced and unlicenced doses and indications, even for the same drug made by different companies...

Some pharmacists tend to see the drug rather than the patient, but most doctors look at the patient and not the drug. Of course the ideal is to match the patient to the drug and to have BOTH a doctor and a pharmacist involved in the CHOICE of treatment.

In my opinion, pharmacists as a group have a tendency to fuss over relatively unimportant details, thus missing the bigger picture. Just as an example, I have heard of pharmacists requesting that GPs prescribe Plavix rather than generic clopidogrel after acute coronary syndrome due to differences in licensing. The difference in licensing is due to patents covering newer indications of clopidogrel, not due to any clinical issues. Frankly, doctors have no interest in this type of nonsense, and it doesn't do our image any good to contact them about this type of thing.

[crit care]

true true!!! but people will argue its those unimportant details which matter..which they often do, but in the grand scheme of things won't do any harm to the patient

[bobbin]

true true!!! but people will argue its those unimportant details which matter..which they often do, but in the grand scheme of things won't do any harm to the patient

But the question is, do these details of licensing matter to anyone apart from pharmacists?

There seems to be a recent movement in the world of pharmacy to promote the use of unlicensed liquid 'specials' as an alternative to the (allegedly) unlicensed practice of dissolving tablets in a bit of water. Since unlicensed specials are clearly not licensed, this practice truly does defy logic. For example, why use unlicensed amlodipine suspension when standard amlodipine tablets disperse readily in water?

[crit care]

companies way of making money i guess!

i think even if there is a liquid available, often chepaer to crush and dissolve tablets...saves on my drug budget!

as for licensing, don't think anyone cares except us...which is silly, everyone should care, if we end up in court, then we won't have a leg to stand on, neither will the dr, as we've gone against the company, so can't claim anything back off them!

[Robert]

But the question is, do these details of licensing matter to anyone apart from pharmacists?

It may matter to the patient if the health insurance company won't pay for a drug when it is used off-label.

[johnep]

This does not apply in the UK where all paid out of taxes. Only if pt is private. More important is if something goes wrong and there is blame to be had.
johnep

[bobbin]

don't think anyone cares except us...which is silly, everyone should care, if we end up in court, then we won't have a leg to stand on

If a doctor tells a patient to crush or dissolve a tablet to facilitate administration, I can't imagine that the pharmacist would end up in court. It's not the pharmacist that recommended it.