<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Theory on Why Many RPhs Oppose Tech Standards</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rxmike.com/2009/03/new-theory-on-why-many-rphs-oppose-tech-standards/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rxmike.com/2009/03/new-theory-on-why-many-rphs-oppose-tech-standards/</link>
	<description>Connect...Learn...Grow</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 00:39:01 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: fred</title>
		<link>http://rxmike.com/2009/03/new-theory-on-why-many-rphs-oppose-tech-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-196</link>
		<dc:creator>fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 19:21:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rxmike.com/?p=199#comment-196</guid>
		<description>fantastic point mike.  that is quite a reality. we need to see each other as colleagues and allies rather than competition. 

Does a CPhT make less errors than a non-certified tech? Will an R.Ph. not be as quick to catch an error if it was prepared by a C.PhT and he put more trust in their ability?

If tech standards pass, would we be held more liable than we were before?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>fantastic point mike.  that is quite a reality. we need to see each other as colleagues and allies rather than competition. </p>
<p>Does a CPhT make less errors than a non-certified tech? Will an R.Ph. not be as quick to catch an error if it was prepared by a C.PhT and he put more trust in their ability?</p>
<p>If tech standards pass, would we be held more liable than we were before?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Thomas</title>
		<link>http://rxmike.com/2009/03/new-theory-on-why-many-rphs-oppose-tech-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-142</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rxmike.com/?p=199#comment-142</guid>
		<description>Mike, what you&#039;re saying is essentially true, but it actually goes deeper than that.

The profession of Pharmacy is a fragmented profession where the parts equal LESS than the whole.  Retail Pharmacists oppose Institutional Pharmacists standards.  Nuclear Pharmacists are an entirely different entity.  Pharmacists as a whole have never completely embraced Technicians.  Even our organizational names reflect this fragmentation.  We have the American Society of Health-System PHARMACISTS.  We have the National PHARMACY TECHNICIAN Association.  There are at least 35 other organizations that have the word &quot;Pharmacist&quot; or &quot;Technician&quot; in it.

If you look at the other professions, you have the American MEDICAL (not Physician) Association, which embraces both Physicians and Physician Assistants.  You have the American DENTAL (not Dentists) Association, which embraces both Dentists and Dental Assistants.  The American Nursing Association.  The National Bar Association.  The list goes on.  ALL these organizations promote the PROFESSION, not the professional, and in that simple difference is where Pharmacy fails.

The profession battles with itself in a house set aflame by its own fragmentation.  And to quote my favorite show, &quot;Only a fool battles in a burning house.&quot;  Pharmacy has to realize that we&#039;re all in this together - Pharmacists, Technicians, Buyers - we&#039;re all part of the same profession.  And until we as a profession embrace each other, well, I hope there&#039;s enough burn salve to go around!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, what you&#8217;re saying is essentially true, but it actually goes deeper than that.</p>
<p>The profession of Pharmacy is a fragmented profession where the parts equal LESS than the whole.  Retail Pharmacists oppose Institutional Pharmacists standards.  Nuclear Pharmacists are an entirely different entity.  Pharmacists as a whole have never completely embraced Technicians.  Even our organizational names reflect this fragmentation.  We have the American Society of Health-System PHARMACISTS.  We have the National PHARMACY TECHNICIAN Association.  There are at least 35 other organizations that have the word &#8220;Pharmacist&#8221; or &#8220;Technician&#8221; in it.</p>
<p>If you look at the other professions, you have the American MEDICAL (not Physician) Association, which embraces both Physicians and Physician Assistants.  You have the American DENTAL (not Dentists) Association, which embraces both Dentists and Dental Assistants.  The American Nursing Association.  The National Bar Association.  The list goes on.  ALL these organizations promote the PROFESSION, not the professional, and in that simple difference is where Pharmacy fails.</p>
<p>The profession battles with itself in a house set aflame by its own fragmentation.  And to quote my favorite show, &#8220;Only a fool battles in a burning house.&#8221;  Pharmacy has to realize that we&#8217;re all in this together &#8211; Pharmacists, Technicians, Buyers &#8211; we&#8217;re all part of the same profession.  And until we as a profession embrace each other, well, I hope there&#8217;s enough burn salve to go around!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kelly O</title>
		<link>http://rxmike.com/2009/03/new-theory-on-why-many-rphs-oppose-tech-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-135</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly O</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 12:28:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rxmike.com/?p=199#comment-135</guid>
		<description>Mike, I posed this theory last week to one of our pharmacists in a discussion and he agreed with you wholeheartedly. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but after a lifetime of working in all sorts of pharmacies, he said it&#039;s pretty clear many pharmacists tend to be introverted. It&#039;s interesting, and it makes me wonder how that will evolve as we watch the Boomers continue to retire, spend more time in the pharmacy, and the interactions they&#039;ll expect from the pharmacist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, I posed this theory last week to one of our pharmacists in a discussion and he agreed with you wholeheartedly. There are exceptions to the rule, of course, but after a lifetime of working in all sorts of pharmacies, he said it&#8217;s pretty clear many pharmacists tend to be introverted. It&#8217;s interesting, and it makes me wonder how that will evolve as we watch the Boomers continue to retire, spend more time in the pharmacy, and the interactions they&#8217;ll expect from the pharmacist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: artech</title>
		<link>http://rxmike.com/2009/03/new-theory-on-why-many-rphs-oppose-tech-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-81</link>
		<dc:creator>artech</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rxmike.com/?p=199#comment-81</guid>
		<description>Interesting.....the pharmacists I work with don&#039;t mind counseling and talking to patients.  Interesting non the less.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting&#8230;..the pharmacists I work with don&#8217;t mind counseling and talking to patients.  Interesting non the less.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
