What to Ask MRR Software Vendors at ASCP 2026: Three Questions

What should you ask MRR software vendors at ASCP 2026? Ask three questions. Where does recurring medication regimen review (MRR) still rely on memory and personal workarounds? What must decision support show before a pharmacist can evaluate it? What should carry forward to the next review? Bring one approved, de-identified workflow and use the same scenario and the same evidence standard with every vendor.

Preparing this way turns a software demonstration into a useful working conversation. The ASCP 2026 Annual Meeting & Exhibition is scheduled for October 29 through November 1 at Gaylord National in National Harbor, Maryland. If you are attending and arranging vendor conversations, use the questions below to connect each discussion to your own practice. For terms used here, see the consultant pharmacy glossary.

The three questions at a glance

1. Hidden work: Where does recurring review still rely on memory, inboxes, spreadsheets or private notes?
2. Reviewable decision support: What must a suggestion show before a pharmacist can judge it?
3. Continuity: What carries forward to the next review period, and what needs a fresh decision?

Before ASCP: bring a workflow that a clean demonstration might miss

Choose an approved, de-identified scenario before you travel. It might involve a missing record, an unanswered recommendation or a covering pharmacist taking over halfway through a review period.

What to write down before you travel

• The starting information
• The people involved
• What a completed outcome would look like

Use that same scenario with each vendor so your comparisons are like for like.

Question 1: Where does recurring review still rely on memory?

A review record can be complete while its follow-up remains in an inbox, a spreadsheet or a private note. The useful question is how a product handles that unfinished work, including who becomes responsible for it. We explore this further in the hidden work in medication regimen review.

Follow one recommendation from start to finish

Ask the demonstrator to follow one recommendation from creation through communication and response.

Test the handover to another pharmacist

Switch to another pharmacist's view. Can that colleague identify what remains open, who last acted and what needs attention next? Ask what happens if the original pharmacist leaves or the facility is reassigned.

Note what happens outside the product

Record which steps were visible in the product and which depended on another tool or a manual process. A separate process can be workable, but your team should understand and own it. For background on why this happens, read why consultant pharmacy workflow fragments.

Question 2: What must decision support show before you can judge it?

A suggestion is a starting point for review, not a conclusion. The pharmacist remains the decision-maker, so the product has to give them enough to evaluate it.

Ask for the source, the dates and the reasoning

Ask to see the suggestion's source information, relevant dates and an understandable explanation of how the system reached it. Request a demonstration of editing, rejecting and finalizing the recommendation, including the permissions for each action.

Use the difficult part of your scenario

If two records disagree, can the pharmacist see that disagreement? If information is missing, how is the limitation represented? Ask how a correction affects the recommendation and whether the original and revised versions can be distinguished.

Separate AI-generated output from clinician checks

For AI-assisted functions, ask the vendor to separate what the system generates from what a clinician checks. Record an undemonstrated capability as a follow-up question, rather than assuming it is either present or absent. Our view on this is set out in decision support that strengthens judgment and AI recommendation review for pharmacists.

Question 3: What carries forward, and what needs a fresh decision?

Continuity can reduce repeated work. It can also preserve an outdated assumption if yesterday's recommendation reappears without its status or context.

Advance your example into the next review period

Look for the difference between a historical recommendation, an unanswered request, a resolved issue and a new finding. Request a demonstration of closing an item and reopening it when new information warrants another review.

Check what the facility report shows

Which date, author and outcome appear in the facility's copy? Can the receiving team distinguish a current action from background history? These details help your practice judge whether the next cycle begins with usable context. See also pharmacist coverage and review continuity.

Vendor conversation checklist

After each conversation: leave with evidence and a next step

Ask what is available today, what needs configuration and what is planned

Before ending a conversation, ask the vendor to separate these three categories. Confirm the proposed product version and the next step needed to verify a data connection, report or migration requirement. If migration is on your mind, see switching consultant pharmacy software.

Record four short notes per vendor

1. What was demonstrated
2. What remains unverified
3. Who will answer the outstanding question
4. When your team will review the answer

Capture the evidence while the discussion is fresh.

Compare notes with the pharmacists who will use the system

Review those notes after the meeting with the pharmacists who will use the system day to day. A controlled pilot may be more informative than another general presentation. For a broader evaluation framework, read consultant pharmacist software: what matters and the year-end buyer's guide to consultant-pharmacy software.

Plan your ASCP 2026 schedule

Check the organizer's current exhibition information when planning your schedule, and confirm meeting arrangements directly with each vendor.

You can also bring these questions to a Pharmacore demo. Share the workflow you need to examine, and apply the same evidence standard to every product you consider.

Frequently asked questions

What should I ask MRR software vendors at ASCP 2026?

Ask where recurring review still relies on memory and workarounds, what decision support must show before a pharmacist can evaluate it, and what should carry forward to the next review period.

What kind of scenario should I bring to a vendor demo?

Bring an approved, de-identified scenario, such as a missing record, an unanswered recommendation or a covering pharmacist taking over mid-period. Write down the starting information, the people involved and what a completed outcome looks like, then use it with every vendor.

How should I evaluate AI-assisted recommendations during a demo?

Ask to see the source information, relevant dates and an explanation of how the system reached the suggestion. Ask the vendor to separate what the system generates from what a clinician checks, and to demonstrate editing, rejecting and finalizing with the permissions for each action.

What should I record after each vendor conversation?

Keep four short notes: what was demonstrated, what remains unverified, who will answer the outstanding question and when your team will review the answer.

When and where is the ASCP 2026 Annual Meeting?

The ASCP 2026 Annual Meeting & Exhibition is scheduled for October 29 through November 1 at Gaylord National in National Harbor, Maryland. Check the organizer's site for current details.

Can I use these questions in a Pharmacore demo?

Yes. Share the workflow you need to examine when you book a Pharmacore demo, and apply the same evidence standard you use with every other product.

About the author

Tim Merritt is a co-founder of Pharmacore. He founded and built the company with Adam Brown and Dave Robbins.