Jerry Fahrni

Last week I found myself in Florida for work. I had a little extra time on my hands so I stopped by NOVA Southeastern University to visit with a friend and colleague, Kevin Clausen (@kevinclausen). Kevin is not only a pharmacist, but professor and researcher at the Center for Consumer Health Informatics Research at NOVA Southeastern. He’s one of a select few pharmacists that are dedicated to pharmacy informatics in academia.

Kevin and I talked about a lot of topics, but one topic that was of particular interest was getting information published in journals. As an active researcher Kevin has a laundry list of published articles to his credit, giving him keen knowledge of the process for publishing research in peer-reviewed journals. One thing that struck a chord with me was the effort and time required to get an article published. Apparently it can take multiple article revisions and upwards of a year to get an article accepted by a certain journals.

No one that’s been involved in the process would be shocked by this; not even me. I’ve heard this before from other people in my profession. The problem is that the model doesn’t work for informatics, automation and technology (IAT). The speed at which the field is evolving means that information is often obsolete by the time it hits the peer-reviewed journals.

The basic question is whether or not information about pharmacy IAT requires the same rigors as research aimed at the clinical side of pharmacy. Does a study of turnaround time during pharmacy distribution with carousel technology vs. robotics require the same intense scrutiny that a study looking at the use of an ACEI vs. an ARB in PWD and HTN would?  Not likely. While one could argue that the method of distribution may impact patient care it is unlikely that the impact would be worth little more than a friendly debatable among colleagues.
Read more …