Quick, in one brief sentence describe the role of a clinical pharmacist.
Tick Tock. Tick Tock. Tick Tock. Tick Tock.
And your answer... is probably correct even though it differs from the twenty other responses given. Actually it may not even be remotely similar to half of the other responses given.
This is precisely the reason I dislike the term 'clinical pharmacist' because it truly does not mean anything. It is a blanket description to cover the roles of a pharmacist that currently lack an accurate description. In fact, I'd say roughly a third of the 'clinical pharmacists' I meet are really ambulatory pharmacists.
Yet even they are unaware of this fact.
No one person is to blame for this facade. It's simply a byproduct of an ever evolving profession, but it is something that we must address at some point. The 'roles' of a clinical pharmacist are incredibly varied that any lay person would question if they really fell under the same umbrella.
Honestly, it may sound petty to begin to discuss what to call ourselves, but in reality is it so petty? We already have a problem with the public and our patients over a misconceived notion of what a pharmacist is. Do we really need to compound the problem by the repeated use of such a vague description of a role?
Naturally this is not something which will change over the night. In fact, in fifteen years I would not be surprised if pharmacy schools were producing pharmacists with specific specialty titles, akin to the current medical school practice, so it may eventually correct itself.
Where do we start? Well if you consider yourself a 'clinical pharmacist' start thinking about what it is you truly do.
Do you call yourself one because you're not sure what the actual title of the role is? Do you call yourself one because you like the sound of it? Do you call yourself one because no one has ever told you otherwise?
I'm sure some use the phrase clinical pharmacy as a bridge between the past hierarchical gap between pharmacists and medical doctors. That is completely understandable, but that bridge cannot stand unless we reenforce the legs upon which it stands.
Let clinical pharmacy remain the general term for the professions specialists. But remember that this is, indeed, merely a general term. An oncologist does not introduce himself as a medical specialist, but simply as an oncologist.
Seems logical enough, wouldn't you agree?
7 comments:
When the terminology came out about 10-15 yrs ago, we hospital staff were made to understand that we all were clinical. When someone uses the descriptor, it's a good idea to either understand that all pharmacists are clinical unless they're non-clinical and work in industry or research. Technically, there is no such thing as a dispensing pharmacist only designation, otherwise they'd be techs.
When I was a pharmacy student, a professor told the class that because we were graduating with a PharmD we would all be clinical pharmacists. He said it wasn't so much of a title or job description, clinical pharmacy was a way of thinking.
You might want to read the American College of Clinical Pharmacy's (ACCP) definition of clinical pharmacy. I like this definition because it states that clinical pharmacy can happen in ANY practice setting.
I think you are confusing the title clinical pharmacist with the attitude of the clinical pharmacists you have come in contact with. Some "clinical pharmacists" give an elitist vibe, like they are somehow better than other pharmacists. Those pharmacists are tainting how you view "clinical pharmacy". Clinical pharmacy is something ALL pharmacists do, we just don't all feel like we have to wear it on our shoulder.
I understand what clinical pharmacy means as a whole. I meant more of describing one's self solely as a clinical pharmacist which, in reality, has no specific definition. You're reply more or less confirmed that fact.
It's not an ego thing, at least for the majority, in my experience. I'm not the only one who things that way. I was recently talking to a former head of ASHP who completely agreed with my assessment that we need to stop using the phrase 'clinical pharmacist' in such a broad manner.
Thanks for stopping by my blog and posting a comment. You're welcome back anytime. It's great people like you that will help me make this blog #1. Thanks again.
So You Want To Be a Banquet Manager
P.S. Good luck with your blog too!
Help me out here Phathead, cause I don't think I'm getting it.
Clinical pharmacy has a definition and if one practices clinical pharmacy, wouldn't that make one a clinical pharmacist? If anything, we, as pharmacists, don't use this term enough to describe what we actually do. We shouldn't be afraid to confuse lay people. By not expaining to them that we are here to optimize their medication therapy, to promote their health, to promote their wellness and to prevent diseases, we are essentially reinforcing the idea that we merly provide them with a drug product every month.
Clinical Pharmacist is the new Pharmacist.
Next time you are hob-knobbing with a former ASHP big wig, discussing the finer points of what exactly pharmacists do and what exactly pharmacists should be called. I would highly recommend a classification be "Rock Star Pharmacists." This is where one would find me.
I am a Rock Star Pharmacist, I will blind you with my awesomeness.
Maybe you should make a post listing and explaining all the different types of pharmacists.
I am currently a pharmacist prescriber, and I agree that the term 'clinical pharmacist' has become loaded with unclear meaning. I know clinical pharmacists that merely stand at a terminal and monitor renal/hepatic function, make recommendations on high/low doses and duplicate therapy. I believe these duties to be the basic duties of a competent doctor of pharmacy (Pharm.D.). I also know that the term clinical pharmacist may lean to the other end of the spectrum including pharmacists that see patients exclusively prescribing drugs independently under a scope of practice with a physician regarding many disease states (e.g., diabetes, asthma, COPD, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, anticoagulation, pain management, oncology supportive care, CHF, hepatitis C, ID/HIV, nutrition support, etc.).
The era of the lick-stick-pour-fill pharmacist is over. I am sure that the 'money-grubber' pharmacist that has their technicians violate OBRA-90 and tell the patient that they are signing for their medications when they are really signing away their right to counseling will hate my prior comment. The product-centered pharmacist from days of yore are unfortunately still telling young pharmacist to not call themselves doctor, to avoid the patient, to avoid duties outside of lick-stick-pour-fill because these are a pipe dream from the ivory tower of academia. I believe these urban myths within the profession should end.
The future of the profession is patient-centered, doctors of pharmacy providing basic patient-centered pharmacy services (e.g., kinetic dosing, drug monitoring, drug utilization, formulary management, appropriate drug selection, etc.) as a basic competent Pharm.D. I also believe that the future will hold pharmacist practitioners working directly with patients on clinical teams (e.g., rounds within the hospital, seeing a panel of patients in the patient-centered medical home primary care clinic, etc.). These pharmacist practitioners will prescribe for chronic disease states, provide more time for difficult or non-compliant patients, prescribe prescription renewals to offload work from the PCP, and provide immediate drug information to providers and the patients.
Pharmacists, unfortunately, do not want to 'leave anyone out' in describing duties. I believe if pharmacists with previous training feel bad about not having the modern training, they should go back to school and catch up in practice. In addition, the profession should agree on basic standards and stop making so many exceptions were there can be a Pharm.D. with six years of training, eight years of training, some with post-graduate training, and some with a bachelor's degree and no consensus.
Post a Comment