Feedback deadline was: 4:00 PM on October 26, 2026
Summary
The Ontario government’s Veterinary Professionals Act, 2024 (VPA) is expected to come into force in the near future and will give pharmacy professionals the authority to continue:
- Compounding veterinary prescriptions for animals
- Dispensing veterinary prescriptions for animals
- Selling veterinary medicines for animals
Without a regulatory exemption in the VPA, only veterinary professionals would be legally permitted to perform these activities. Pharmacy professionals have a long history of providing animal owners across Ontario with access to pharmacy services and the medications their animals need.
To support the exemption and to clearly outline expectations for providing pharmacy services to animals, the College has prepared a draft Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals policy that is now part of a public consultation. We are seeking feedback on whether the policy expectations are clear, reasonable, and achievable, and to identify information that may be missing that could result in risks to animals or pharmacy practice.
How You Can Provide Your Input
Members of the public, pharmacy and veterinarian professionals, and interested organizations or system partners are encouraged to participate by 4 p.m. on October 26, 2026, using one of the following methods:
- Complete an online survey
- View a PDF version of the survey questions
- Feedback submitted through the survey will be anonymized and aggregated
- Add your feedback in the online form below
- Feedback submitted through the online form will be published on this webpage within 1-3 business days in accordance with our posting guidelines
- Send us an email at [email protected]
- Feedback submitted by email will be added to this webpage within 1-3 business days in accordance with our posting guidelines
The College reserves the right to refuse or remove comments that do not meet the posting guidelines. All feedback submitted as part of the consultation, whether published or not, will be reviewed and considered in the analysis provided to the Board.
Requests for accessible formats can be made by emailing [email protected] or via our toll-free number 1-800-220-1921.
Next Steps
Following the consultation, the draft Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals policy may be revised based on the feedback received. The Board will then be asked to consider and approve the draft policy at a future meeting.
Supporting Documents
- Draft Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals policy
- Draft Supplemental Guidance to the Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals policy
- Summary of policy development
- Board Briefing Note: Providing Pharmacy Services to Animal Patients (June 15, 2026, meeting)
Read The Feedback
This response was submitted by the OnPharm United. Read the full submission here.
This response was submitted by a Pharmacist. Read the full submission here.
This response was submitted by the Transition Council of the College of Veterinary Professionals of Ontario. Read the full submission here.
This response was submitted by the Legacy Council of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario. Read the full submission here.
This response was submitted by Ontario Veterinary Medical Association. Read the full submission here.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on this draft policy. In the best interest of animal safety and quality compounding, there are items in the draft and guidance documents that should be revised. 1) Professional responsibilities Veterinarians are accountable for the clinical decisions and treatment needs of the animals under their care. They determine clinical needs, intended use, anticipated demand and required quantities based on their professional judgement. Establishing a veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR) is governed by veterinary licensing requirements and does not require pharmacist oversight. Below are examples of statements that should be removed as they fall under the professional realm of the veterinarian. a) Line 151 in Guidance document, “as such, it is reasonable to expect that you assess the need for, and intended purpose of, orders for office use.” b) Line 161 in the Guidance document, “pharmacy professionals must use their professional judgement along with objective evidence, (e.g. information on typical dispensing volume from the veterinarian) to determine the amount that can be sold to a veterinarian to use in their practice.” c) B) Line165, “confirming that the preparation is for use only within a VCPR is also essential” Pharmacists assess the legitimacy and appropriateness of orders, identify safety concerns and seek clarification with the prescriber when they feel necessary. Compounding pharmacists are responsible for preparing compounds that meet therapeutic needs as well as applicable quality, safety and professional practice standards. Pharmacists should support and collaborate but not interfere with the professional activities of other health care professionals. 2) Starting materials Pharmacists have specialized compounding expertise supported by training, established compounding organizations and standards and compounding pharmacies are frequently relied upon by veterinarians when commercial drugs are unavailable or unsuitable. Lines starting at 57 and again at 76 of the draft policy, mandate following a cascade that has not been scientifically proven and was established by non-compounding groups. Reference in the policy to the decision cascade should be replaced with instruction that starting materials be selected based on the professional judgement of the compounding pharmacist following current compounding guidelines, formulas, etc. • The draft states at line 74 pharmacy professionals must adhere to Health Canada’s POL-0051. Under Section 5.1 Compounding: j. Product should be produced from an authorized drug or Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) used in an authorized drug for use in Canada or listed in a recognized Pharmacopoeia (USP, PhEur, PhF, PhI, BP, CF, NF, Codex – Schedule B Food and Drugs Act.) • In the next sentence, the draft contradicts POL-0051 by stating the starting point must be a drug approved for veterinary use or if not possible for human use, or if not possible, an API. POL-0051 does not align with this cascade, nor does the recommended sources of ingredients listed in the NAPRA compounding documents. • Line 154 of the Guidance: “This is especially true for compounded preparations, which inherently pose an incremental risk to the patient compared to a manufactured product”. Inherent risk occurs with a compound prepared from a commercial product, whether animal or human. Lot-specific Certificates of Analysis (CoAs) containing assay data accompany API, whereas commercial products are permitted 90–110% potency range, leaving the pharmacist without the precise assay, and thereby increasing risk of potencies falling outside the allowable range. 3) Correction: Line 102 of the Guidance needs correcting as stated in Health Canada’s GUI-0002, a drug establishment license (DEL) is not required for a pharmacist to import API, except for APIs on List A: List of Certain Antimicrobial Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients. As written, this policy may undermine rather than advance the OCP’s patient-safety mandate by reducing safety, delaying access to medication, reducing access to medication for owners by increasing costs, and unnecessarily consuming valuable healthcare professionals’ time.
This response was submitted by a Pharmacist. Read the full submission here.
Submission to the Ontario College of Pharmacists Draft Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals Policy and Supplemental Guidance Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals Policy and the accompanying Supplemental Guidance. I am an Ontario pharmacist with considerable experience providing pharmacy services for animals, including both dispensing commercially available medications and preparing patient-specific compounded medications. Through this work, I have had the opportunity to collaborate with veterinarians and animal owners and to see firsthand the important role that pharmacists can play in improving access to medications for animals. Overall, I support the College establishing a clear framework for veterinary pharmacy practice. I also support the principle that pharmacy professionals who provide these services must have the appropriate knowledge, skills and judgment to do so safely. There are, however, several areas where I believe the proposed policy and guidance would benefit from clarification or revision. My primary concern is ensuring that the policy maintains a clear distinction between the veterinarian’s responsibility for the therapeutic decision and the pharmacist’s responsibility for the pharmaceutical and dispensing decision. 1. Responsibility for the veterinary therapeutic decision cascade The draft policy states that pharmacy professionals dispensing an extra-label drug must follow the same decision-making cascade as veterinarians. I believe this expectation requires clarification. The veterinarian has examined or assessed the animal, established the veterinarian-client-patient relationship, diagnosed the condition and selected the treatment. By the time a pharmacist receives a prescription, the veterinarian has already made the therapeutic decision. A pharmacist certainly has an obligation to assess the prescription for appropriateness within their scope and competence and to contact the veterinarian where there is a concern. However, requiring the pharmacist to independently establish that each preceding step in the veterinarian’s therapeutic decision cascade was considered or exhausted risks transferring part of the prescribing responsibility to the pharmacist. For example, when a veterinarian prescribes a compounded preparation, the pharmacist may have no way of knowing whether another veterinary product was considered, whether it was clinically unsuitable, whether the animal was unable to tolerate its dosage form, or whether there were other patient-specific reasons for the veterinarian’s decision. I recommend that the policy make the division of responsibility explicit: The veterinarian should remain responsible for selecting therapy in accordance with the veterinary therapeutic decision cascade. The pharmacist should remain responsible for determining whether the prescription can be safely and appropriately dispensed or compounded and for consulting the veterinarian where clarification or intervention is required. I believe this would provide clearer accountability for both professions. 2. Compounding from an API versus a commercially available drug I have particular concern with the proposed hierarchy requiring a compounded preparation to be made first from a veterinary-approved drug, then from a human-approved drug, and only if those options are not possible, from an active pharmaceutical ingredient. Once the veterinarian has appropriately determined that a compounded preparation is required, the selection of the most appropriate starting material should be a pharmaceutical decision based on the formulation, the animal’s needs, applicable compounding standards, ingredient quality, stability and professional judgment. Starting with a manufactured tablet or capsule is not inherently preferable to starting with an appropriate pharmaceutical-grade API. A manufactured product may introduce unnecessary excipients, coatings, dyes, fillers, flavours or other ingredients that can complicate a formulation or may be undesirable for a particular animal or species. Health Canada’s POL-0051 also recognizes compounding from either an authorized drug or an appropriate API. I am concerned that the proposed OCP hierarchy could unintentionally create a more restrictive requirement without necessarily improving safety. I recommend that once the therapeutic need for compounding has been established, pharmacists be permitted to select the appropriate source material in accordance with applicable compounding standards, Health Canada requirements, formulation considerations and professional judgment. 3. Clarification of what constitutes an “available” drug The terms “available” and “not available” are important throughout the proposed policy but are not sufficiently defined. This is particularly significant in veterinary pharmacy because a drug may technically be authorized or marketed in Canada but not reasonably obtainable by a community pharmacy. For example, a product may: • be on backorder; • be unavailable through the pharmacy’s wholesalers; • be subject to restricted veterinary distribution channels; • no longer be actively marketed despite continuing to have a DIN; • not be obtainable within a clinically reasonable timeframe; or • exist only in a strength, dosage form or formulation that is unsuitable for the particular animal. The practical availability of veterinary medications to pharmacists is an established issue in Canada. A product should not be considered “available” merely because an approved veterinary product theoretically exists. I recommend defining availability from the perspective of the pharmacy actually providing care. A reasonable standard would be whether the medication is lawfully and reasonably obtainable by the dispensing pharmacy within a timeframe appropriate to the animal’s therapeutic needs. 4. Therapeutic need for compounding when a commercial product exists Related to the above, I believe the policy should more clearly recognize that the existence of a commercially manufactured product does not necessarily eliminate the therapeutic need for compounding. There are many legitimate patient-specific reasons why compounding may be appropriate despite a commercially available product, including: • an unavailable strength; • inability of the animal to swallow the commercial dosage form; • impractical or inaccurate tablet splitting; • the need for a different route of administration; • excipient intolerance or species-specific concerns; • very small doses; • adherence challenges; or • the need for an alternative dosage form that can reasonably be administered to the animal. The policy should clearly distinguish between inappropriate duplication of a commercially available product for convenience or economic reasons and legitimate patient-specific compounding intended to provide a customized therapeutic solution. 5. Requirement to dispense the exact brand prescribed The draft states that a drug must be dispensed exactly as prescribed and identifies changing the brand as requiring veterinarian authorization. I recommend that the College clarify how this requirement interacts with Ontario’s existing drug interchangeability legislation. Where substitution of an interchangeable product is otherwise permitted by law, it is unclear why veterinary prescriptions would require a separate veterinarian authorization solely because the manufacturer or brand changes. If the College intends a different standard for veterinary prescriptions, that distinction and its rationale should be explicit. Alternatively, the policy could state that the prescription must be dispensed as prescribed except where substitution is otherwise permitted under applicable legislation. 6. Office-use medications and compounded preparations I support the recognition in the policy and Supplemental Guidance that pharmacies may supply medications, including appropriate compounded preparations, to veterinarians for office use and may prepare reasonable quantities in anticipation of prescriptions where permitted. These are important aspects of veterinary pharmacy practice. I agree that pharmacists should exercise appropriate due diligence when evaluating veterinarian office-use orders, including considering quantities, anticipated usage, beyond-use dates, safety and whether the medication will be used within legitimate veterinarian-client-patient relationships. However, I recommend caution with language requiring pharmacists to independently “assess the need” for the veterinarian’s therapy. The pharmacist should assess whether the order is legitimate, reasonable, safe and appropriate to supply. The pharmacist should not be expected to independently establish the clinical necessity of the veterinarian’s treatment decision unless there is a specific concern requiring clarification. Again, the distinction between therapeutic responsibility and pharmaceutical responsibility should remain clear. 7. Pharmacist counselling and medication expertise I also recommend that the final policy more clearly acknowledge the pharmacist’s role in counselling animal owners. There are obviously areas of veterinary diagnosis, treatment selection and disease management that remain the responsibility of the veterinarian. At the same time, pharmacists have substantial expertise concerning medications and compounded preparations. Depending on their knowledge and competence, pharmacists can appropriately provide counselling concerning matters such as: • administration and measurement; • storage; • handling; • beyond-use dates; • medication interactions; • missed doses; • disposal; • characteristics of compounded dosage forms; and • circumstances where the animal owner should contact the veterinarian. The policy should encourage appropriate collaboration between pharmacists and veterinarians rather than creating the impression that medication counselling for an animal belongs exclusively to one profession. 8. Competency requirements I support the College’s decision not to require a mandatory veterinary certification or specific educational credential for every pharmacist providing these services. The existing professional expectation that pharmacists practise only within their knowledge, skills and judgment is appropriate. Veterinary pharmacy can be an area of specialized practice, just as pharmacists may develop expertise in compounding, oncology, geriatrics or other areas. Pharmacists who choose to practise in this area should be expected to develop and maintain appropriate veterinary medication knowledge and utilize suitable veterinary references. If the College chooses to mandate certification in veterinary medicine, then the College is setting a precedent that all specialized areas of pharmacy should require mandatory certifications. Conclusion I support the College’s objective of creating a clear and safe framework that allows pharmacy professionals to continue providing medications to animals. I believe the final policy will be stronger if it establishes a very clear division of professional responsibility: The veterinarian is responsible for the therapeutic decision. The pharmacist is responsible for the pharmaceutical and dispensing decision. Both professionals have an obligation to identify concerns, communicate and collaborate, but neither should be required to duplicate the other’s assessment. I would encourage the College to revise the policy and Supplemental Guidance to: 1. clarify that the veterinarian is responsible for applying the therapeutic decision cascade when selecting treatment; 2. allow pharmacists appropriate professional judgment in selecting APIs or manufactured source products when compounding is therapeutically justified; 3. clearly define what constitutes an “available” medication; 4. expressly recognize legitimate patient-specific reasons for compounding when a commercial product exists; 5. clarify the interaction between the proposed brand requirement and Ontario’s drug interchangeability legislation; and 6. more clearly define the pharmacist’s responsibilities when supplying medications and compounded preparations for veterinary office use. My concern is not with appropriate oversight of veterinary pharmacy practice. I welcome clear expectations and appropriate safeguards. My concern is that regulatory requirements should accurately reflect how veterinarians and pharmacists work together and should not unintentionally create barriers that make legitimate pharmacy services for animals more difficult to provide without producing a corresponding improvement in safety. Thank you for considering this feedback.
This response was submitted by OPA. Read the full submission here.
This response was submitted by Canada Chemists. Read the full submission here.
This response was submitted by Veterinary Drugs Directorate. Read the full submission here.
This response was submitted by Chiron Compounding. Read the full submission here.
As a pharmacy professional, I advocate against our authority being framed as an “exemption” under the Veterinary Professionals Act, 2024. The Pharmacy Act, 1991, already legally authorizes us to compound, dispense, and sell medications for animals. Framing this established scope as an exemption is like requiring veterinarians to get an exemption to dispense medications simply because that act traditionally belongs to pharmacies. A self-governing profession should not need a special exception from an external framework to perform acts it is already fully authorized to do. The new regulations must recognize our independent authority rather than treating it as a conditional carve-out. Furthermore, I recommend clarifying the responsibilities surrounding the Extra-Label Drug Use (ELDU) decision-making cascade. The clinical determination of the appropriate therapeutic pathway rests with the prescribing veterinarian. When a pharmacist receives a valid prescription, it should be understood that the prescriber has already evaluated and followed the necessary clinical cascade required by their regulatory body. Requiring pharmacists to independently verify or duplicate this process at the dispensing stage can inadvertently delay timely care for animal patients. Additionally, this framework should not assume that all pharmacists lack veterinary knowledge. While it is a niche area, many pharmacists have taken extra training, specialized in veterinary care, and use dedicated reference materials. Instead of imposing restrictive barriers, our regulations should encourage veterinarians and pharmacists to collaborate as peer healthcare professionals to ensure the best care for animal patients.
Re the comment of October 15th…pharmacists and techs who go into this area of practice do take courses that focus on veterinary care, etc. This is not a “sell anything that you can get $$ for” aspect; ethical pharmacists, as has been said, will only take part with the proper training and references. That usually comes AFTER graduation, not as part of the undergraduate curriculum. And we are not being compelled to enter into this area of practice. If you look at http://www.acpcrx.com you will find a reference base for pharmacists with specialization in veterinary care. As for references to have for that practice, primary ones were not mentioned (such as Plumb’s Veterinary Handbook). Please do not create the impression that this is a mandatory duty; it is optional, and the proposed policy of the OCP is to provide guidance, along with the Supplemental Guidance document, to those who choose to partake of this area of practice. The OCP should ensure that these comments, when conveyed back to the Board, are tempered because it is clear from some of these that the consultation may not have been spelled out in terms of purpose/intent, and that it is for those who CHOOSE to do so, who must be guided by their own self-confidence as professionals as to whether or not they are competent to practice in that area (just as is the case for other specialized areas). Please refer to page 170/201 in the OCP Board Agenda for July, 2026, Item 9, under “Exploring training needs” — “that pharmacy professionals are not required to provide services to animals but may do so only if they have the knowledge, skills and judgment to do so safely…Based on the risk assessment (done by the OCP), it was determined that continuing with the current scope of selling, dispensing and compounding for animals is appropriate without additional training requirements.”
Regulation aimed at pharmacy practice for veterinary clients is certainly challenging. The documents posted indicate College staff have had much to consider in producing the four explanatory guidances. A few comments for staff below: 1. Some acknowledgement and discussion of human and animal ethics as the basis for how the public’s perceived needs are met by this legislation might allow professionals to untangle the basis for their positioning on serving non-human entities. The public at this time (and the College) do not consider non-human entities as deserving a level of healthcare on par with humans. This differential manifests in the Veterinary Professionals Act (VPA) and the cascade of College documents and is the basis for the regulatory scheme being quite different. 2. Given the VPA limits the pharmacy professional to “compounding, dispensing and selling” of drugs, it would be important to explicitly exempt pharmacists and pharmacy technicians from specific sections of their Standards of Practice, Code of Ethics, legislation and subordinate legislation (and likely other regulatory guidances). 3. Anywhere in the veterinary guidances that mention extra training and gaining broader competencies to allow for greater professional services might constitute a risk of pharmacy professionals (pharmacists) overstepping the Act-specified circumscribed veterinary scope. Perhaps some further nuance in these ‘grey’ areas would be helpful as professionals determine whether they undertake further training in veterinary pharmacotherapy in order to fully engage in assessing for drug related problems in animals. Perhaps some case studies as examples would be clarifying. 3. Conscientious objection might arise in pharmacy professionals who may not share a world view/ethics of animals deserving less concern than humans. 4. Legislation appears to have been motivated by the cost (and to some extent maybe accessibility) to consumers (animal caretakers/owners) of pharmaceuticals rather than for purposes of effectiveness or safety. This is an important consideration for pharmacy professionals to understand and maintain at the fore as the crux of the public’s perceived need. To ensure the pharmacy professional’s limited role is maintained and communicated to clients is important given clients are used to receiving more comprehensive care during their visits to pharmacies. Indeed, there may be a need for a basic informational circular aimed at members of the public who engage pharmacy professionals for veterinary drug supply that makes this limited role clear. Public-facing information may also serve to preclude complaints about quality of care provided to animals (I do wonder about complaint load increases) on the part of owners/caretakers. 5. If the role described within the VPA is entirely able to be fulfilled within a pharmacy technician’s scope of practice (as I interpret it can), this may be helpful to confirm. 6. Will the College be partnering with educators on producing entry-to-practice or continuing professional education aimed at pharmacists and technicians about how their professional role is performed in the context of veterinary practice? Such an interesting development. As public ethics and expectations evolve around animals, maintaining currency will require vigilance.
Pharmacist have not received training (UofT Pharmacy curriculum did not cover this) to accurately assess prescriptions for animals, nor do the current references (Lexicomp, vigilance) support clinical checking for animals. Often times, when prescriptions come in for animals, we trust that vets have done their checking because we don’t have any training on this material. Prescriptions for animals should be left to vet clinics. Pharmacists are already over worked. OCP should first implement mandatory breaks and staffing levels along with billing numbers for appropriate compensation before trying to add on more tasks.
I think this is a great initiative however pharmacists must be able to provide instruction and direction on dispensing certain medications to different animals and the side effects involved. As someone who has fostered and adopted many, many special needs cats – when I pick up prescriptions, they involve a lot of specialized information, details, and careful instructions. Mis handling of veterinary medications could cause severe illness or death to a small pet…. pharmacists need to be well aware of all of this information.
This response was submitted by Summit Veterinary Pharmacy Ltd. Read the full submission here.
Can we add some clarifications on what can be sold to owners without a prescription? (If any) .For example the flea and tick medications like Nexgard Also, does the prescription has to have a animal weight? Thank you
This response was submitted by a Pharmacist. Read the full submission here.
Pharmacists are Health care professionals trusted by the public and other members of the health care team to provide medication supply and distribution services combined with knowledge of those medications. Adding Pharmacists to the animal medications supply chain would benefit the public through greater choice, convenience and competitive pricing. I would urge veterinarians to embrace this partnership to benefit their profession. The College should work to enable Pharmacists to choose to expand their practice in this direction if they so choose.
I had my own Pharmacy Business and next door was animal hospital used to fill all prescriptions for their clints and on estimated price by the hospital and this is against law and deprive pharmacist from their work . Please find solution for this. Thank you
Comment made: “Whenever patients ask me about meds for their pet, I say ask the vet! Just like how patients are constantly coming in for what they think is “pink eye”, I tell them see an optometrist, I am not skilled or trained in assessing eyes and neither do I have the tools.” This suggests that we’re getting into a “scope of practice” discussion here, about assessing the animals. No. Pharmacists do interact with veterinarians from time to time (or more often if it’s their speciality). In the course of that, a prescription may result — FROM THE VETERINARIAN. S/he has done the assessment of their patient. Period. Not the pharmacist. The owner has the right to request a prescription from the veterinarian (always has). That can be taken to a pharmacist for filling. And that is done if the pharmacist is competent (by the legal meaning of the word) to fill that prescription; if not, the OCP has seen fit to state we don’t need further courses to fill such prescriptions, because it is already in our scope of practice, and filling of that prescription is what we do in our controlled acts acumen. This policy is a supplement to the existing laws of this country, as well as to the new Veterinary Professionals Act which is not yet in force. And that Act is permitted to exempt certain professions from what it says in the act about who may dispense, compound, etc. for animals. To me, pharmacists already have this authority under the DPRA and federal Food and Drug Regulations; an exemption for this should not be required as it appears to be infringing on another profession’s fundamental practice privileges. If anything in the proposed policy (or its guide) appears to be contrary to those practice rights, now is the time to challenge the wording of the proposed policy. Because, the federal laws define “drug” and “prescription” and those include “for humans, animals, and fowl.” It’s already authorized to fill those prescriptions. Assessing a specific patient, however, would be outside the scope and that was a concern of the CVO (now CVPO) when it came to us allowing adaptation of prescriptions; they don’t want that to happen and as such, interacted with our college starting in 2017 with a view to new legislation. This should have been set to rest long ago.
Like many other proposals by OCP I think this should only be allowed for those who are qualified and trained! I did not receive any education on animal physiology or therapeutics, there is a reason vets go to school for years to learn this stuff. Whenever patients ask me about meds for their pet, I say ask the vet! Just like how patients are constantly coming in for what they think is “pink eye”, I tell them see an optometrist, I am not skilled or trained in assessing eyes and neither do I have the tools. OCP, we need to focus on some more worthwhile suggestions that focus on patient safety, such as the health and wellness of pharmacists and their team! SO many pharmacies are filled with toxic people and pharmacists are constantly MENTALLY SUFFERING under toxic environments, and this can lead to patient harm.
I highly support OCP to implement the new policy: Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals. I myself has a cat as my emotional support by providing unique psychological, physiological, and practical lifestyle benefits. While they do not replace professional mental health treatments, their quiet and affectionate companionship offers highly effective therapy for individuals managing anxiety, depression, PTSD, and chronic stress. Animals/cats should be taken care of because they are completely dependent on humans for their physical survival, medical health, and emotional well-being. Meeting their needs ensures they live a long, pain-free life while preventing behavioral and public health issues. Some of the help pharmacy professionals can provide for animals/cats are vaccinations since cats are masters at hiding pain and illness as a survival instinct; without preventative care, cats can suffer from painful flea infestations, ear mites, and internal worms. Some of these parasites can also infect human; and cats show signs of oral disease by age three. Left untreated, severe dental disease causes intense chronic pain, tooth loss, and can lead to life-threatening heart and kidney infections.
There is a lot of confusion already evident here from comments that appear to suggest this will be MANDATORY practice for all pharmacists. Not so. The Veterinarians Act is being replaced by the Veterinary Professionals Act, 2024. There are regulations associated with that new Act, which are being put forward for comment. In talks since 2017, the CVO and OCP (through councils) decided to create an information dissertation for pharmacists, since pharmacists are mentioned in the VPA as exempted from some restrictions, subject to regulations. Please stop thinking this is being added on to our duties; it is optional and will only apply if one chooses to go into the realm of veterinary practice. Our own college has already indicated, more than once (if you read Board minutes, etc.) that pharmacists who undertake such actions do so only by knowing the practice acumen; if they don’t, then they have to know to not get involved. This is no different than a pharmacist who elects to be primarily involved in oncology patient care (being near such a centre). We have been seen by our college to have the professionalism to know when to say, “No, I don’t have that set of skills” (or take the requisite self-training courses to become competent). To the veterinarian comment (Sept 16) I must state that they are incorrect in saying the cannot dispense drugs for human use. The controlled act of dispensing and compounding under the RHPA identifies the Ontario professions that are permit their registrants to do these acts. In fact, the veterinary agencies have compiled a “decision cascade” that condones dispensing a HUMAN APPROVED DRUG for ANIMAL USE. So they are permitted to dispensed human drugs for their patients. CAHI (Canadian Animal Health Institute) has, for decades, tried to protect their self-interests (they are made up of veterinary drug companies) by forcing out (as one example) compounding, promoting misinformation to their members that such is riskier than using a commercial veterinary product — then, allowing them to use human products ahead of Good Compounding Practice standards that always prefer starting materials to be from a single API that meets professional standards. Health Canada approved those human drugs for that species…not others. So there is just as much risk/liability using a human drug in animals, as there is no evidence for its safety and efficacy in those “off label” species. There are, in fact, pharmacies and pharmacists who have significant training in veterinary pharmacy. Even our provincial (DPRA) and federal statutes define “drug” as being for use in “humans, animals, or fowl” and of course, pharmacists are regulated under those statutes, which means dispensing legal prescriptions is within their authority (just as “dispensing” is done by veterinarians). This consultation is about a policy of the OCP and should not get into “vets not liking pharmacists dispensing the VET’s legal prescription” in the course of patient care. That loses focus on the fact that everything starts with the veterinarian issuing a prescription, and if that involves a compounded preparation to effect care for the patient, then there is interaction between the veterinarian and the pharmacist to decide on a unique formulation for that patient, which the veterinarian ends up agreeing to (or not) and if in agreement, issues a prescription that permits its dispensing by a competent pharmacist in that field of practice. If “bad apples” exist (as they do for all professions) and get involved in dispensing a prescription that they should have known was not within their knowledge realm, and something adverse happens, then there is a regulatory process for complaints, etc. to be pursued. But let’s not paint an entire profession (either side) with the same brush. Just as use of a compounded drug is seen by veterinary regulators as ELDU, so is the use of human drugs in any species other than humans. Ultimately, the veterinarian is responsible for their choice of treatment in a patient. The pharmacist is ALWAYS responsible for the dispensing of the prescribed drug accurately, AS PRESCRIBED.
I am a veterinarian. I am encouraged to see that some pharmacists are NOT interested in carrying and dispensing veterinary products. Animals are NOT small people. I cannot dispense drugs for human use, so why is a pharmacist dispensing drugs for animal use?? If you want to keep good quality veterinary medicine in your communities, don’t undercut by selling meds cheaper at human pharmacies. The veterinarian will be the one to deal with any adverse events like drug reactions and to advise on dose changes, etc. when needed, not the pharmacist. I sent a prescription to a human pharmacy last week for a cat–simply because it was urgent–and the owner went home with the human drug information–completely not applicable to the cat at all. Please leave veterinary dispensing to veterinarians. Please.
Hi, I would like to get more information regarding animal allergies and the ingredients that should be avoided for specific animals, including which ingredients may be unsafe or contraindicated for certain species. It would also be helpful to have guidance on commonly used OTC medications for animals, including: * Which OTC medications are considered safe for specific animal species * Recommended dosing and frequency * Age/weight considerations * Important contraindications, interactions, and potential side effects * Ingredients or formulations that should be avoided * Any specific brand or product recommendations that are appropriate for animals This information would help us provide safer and more appropriate guidance when customers have questions about OTC products for their pets.
Before OCP add more responsibilities on pharmacists, please understand that we pharmacists have to do everything during the pharmacies’ working hours and if these hours are not extended or registered technicians are not provided then patient care is going to be compromised. We already have lots of minor ailments to be treated by the pharmacists and we may treat a few more minor ailments in future, but without having any knowledge, to dispense vet medicines, it’s not safe for either the pharmacists or for the animals. I am highly positive that if we have to dispense vet products, no one pharmacy owners or no one companies will provide proper training or online reference to the pharmacists.
Minor ailments, suboxone injections, flu shots, covid shots and now vet services! I am a PHARMACIST. I am NOT a vet, I am NOT a nurse, I am NOT a doctor!!!! Please stop adding more work with no compensation yet again. ONce again, OCP is prioritizing convenience over accuracy and appropriateness. Of course the public things its wonderful, they don’t have to wait to make sure they get the right medication. Animals are not simply small humans. We are not taught animal medication in pharmacy school. I had a pharmacist colleague who gave a dry eye drop to owners of a parrot and it died (by the way the pharmacist lost their license). I dispense vet meds right now with zero checking of dose or counseling unless I use AI. Hope I don’t kill your pet. For once, can we let the vets do their job and I do mine?
Getting my dogs meds filled at my pharmacy was wonderful. Saved me time and money!
This is a welcome change from the college of Pharmacists. I do agree that there needs to be some sort of policy that guides the dispensing of prescriptions to animals. Most pharmacies do not have the required knowledge to dispense such prescriptions however and a training process would be required. One can expect the cost of veterinary prescriptions to increase as the number of available pharmacy operators offering such service services decrease similar to when compounding changes were introduced.
As a RPhT who also had a animal with several chronic and serious health conditions, being able to have my pets medications filled in a community compounding pharmacy versus purchasing from my vet saved me thousands of dollars, if not close to $10K+. I know how much this cost savings helped me to be able to afford quality and lifesaving care for my pet prior to his passing and I think giving this option to pet parents and expanding a pharmacies ability to sell veterinary specific medications will help with providing more accessible care for pets. I believe it will also help with availability issues, for example, my vet could not get one of my pets medications, that I usually get from the vet as it is an animal specific medication, as it was on backorder. As they knew I worked in the pharmacy field, he offered to write me a prescription to get filled at the pharmacy I got all of my pets other medications done but since it is a vet only medication they could not. My vet was very shocked by this so I feel they would be supportive of this From a workload perspective, I can also see this adding more stress to community pharmacies that are already overworked and understaffed, which would also lead to more errors. I also think having a designated “vet-med only” section for medications that are old prescribed to pets (ex. Tylosin tablets) to help with patient safety to avoid accidental mix-up of medications.