4 ms·
I think for the pharmacists its simply economics. It's cheaper to have 3 or 4 pharmacists and a bunch of much lower payed techs on staff to do the work manually
by Deprecate9151 3y ago
I think for the pharmacists its simply economics. It's cheaper to have 3 or 4 pharmacists and a bunch of much lower payed techs on staff to do the work manually then develop and maintain automation while complying with existing regulations. I know some hospitals have automatic medication dispensing, so I'm assuming they have much higher volume where it makes sense.
- pavel_lishin 3y agoPharmacists can also catch obviously-wrong prescriptions - "This should be milligrams, not grams. If you take 20 grams of this, you'll die, in a spectacular and gruesome fashion." (Granted, pharmacists can also miss things like this - which is why technology, checklists and humans working together are probably the best solution.)
- hn_throwaway_99 3y agoI can't think of any situation where detection of things like wrong dosages, drug interactions, incorrect prescriptions, etc. couldn't be better tracked and identified by an automated system than a human.