Allowing pharmacists to accept prescriptions from patients, enter them in the computer, and file them according to the date they were entered has advantages.  Many prescriptions are misplaced by patients when they don't have them filled and this creates a great deal of confusion when a fill is needed.  The pharmacy contacts the prescriber for a refill, the prescriber states that they gave one to the patient, the pharmacy attempts to contact the patient back asking for a prescription the prescriber gave them months ago.  And the search begins.

In many cases, the new "on hold" prescription can be linked to the previous RX allowing a seamless fill for the pharmacy and the patient. 

An on hold prescription should go through the same checks that a filled prescription does, a pharmacist needs to review the information and sign off that it is indeed correct regardless of who does that data entry. When the prescription is needed, it will be treated as if it was a refill.

Pharmacies that are accepting these prescriptions from their patients for convenience have to do twice the work, because they have to retrieve that original prescription, deactivate it, update the number again, fill it and re-file just so it is filed in the right place!  The same thing would occur if a patient doesn't pick up a prescription in a timely manner and it is returned to stock, only to want it filled again at a later date.  It is redundant and over burdensome on pharmacy staff.

The regulation stating that prescriptions must be filed in chronological order from the date filled is simply left over from a time before computers.  That made the most logical sense at that point in time.  With today's data bases we can pull information out in a variety of ways.   We can search by patient, prescriber, medication, date filled, date written, etc.  Retrieving information is no longer limited. 

There is no good reason to file prescriptions by date filled any longer.

I truly think this regulation is both unnecessary and redundant considering the current technicology in place in most pharmacies. I certainly could see the possible need for this before the advent of computers prior to when we had readily retrievable data. These days, we are able to access data almost instantly so to have to duplicate effort by making new numberts on on-hold rxs is both archaic and unnecessary. Thank you for allowing me to comment on this matter.

We as a profession need to strive to keep our laws and regulations current with new practices that have evolved with the multitude of technologies that have improved our practice. The regulation regarding "on hold" prescriptions is an example of Law/Regulations that needs to be updated. This regulation not only increases non-productive work for physicians and pharmacies but also could increase drug diversion with lost prescriptions. Thanks!

What you have said here does make sense and could make things ring a lot smoother. Pharmacies have a lot of other work to do and this could cut down on their time. And it will be an easier experience for patients, says london escorts.

Placing prescriptions "on hold" makes sense for a couple of reasons. Both Pharmacists and patients recognize that the patient is not the best person to keep up with a prescription. By turning the prescription over to the Pharmacist to hold, the patient has a secure, and dependable method to track their prescription. In addition, placing a prescription on hold allows a more accurate record of the date the prescription was originally generated. If a patient holds a prescription for six months before turning it in, it may possibly be out of date before it is utilized. Remember, genius is often the same as simplicity.

Setting rules and regulations is pretty hard and headache. But it is for the public safety and secure.

Thanks,

Check out about your roof!

That would be nice action !

Glass blocks, Glass block shop