Re: Fwd: Become_IV_Certified

September 24, 2004

Sorry, I misunderstood your validation comment. I assumed you meant that they

had the same check list. NAPTs may be more involved. I agree with you that

they were smart to use the word certification because that seems to be something

that they look for in the US. I haven't found that here in Canada, I just

wanted to do the course so I had some hands on experience. I do hope that the

check off list for the NAPT course is more involved. I still want to do the

Pharm Ed course one day (I can't now because I just found a lump on my dogs neck

and it may turn out to be cancer, which is getting expensive so far to treat),

but at one point, just so I get the hands on experience. You would not be an

expert like you said, but you would definetly have the hands on experience (like

you said) to gain employment in that field and employers want hands on

experience instead of training from scratch, so I think all programs are a good

idea!

CPhT

Jeanetta Mastron <rxjm2002@...> wrote:

and Joe,

First of all I have never said ( I do not think I better re-read) that the three

entitities have th esame check off list. I would have no idea of knowing that.

I found no reference to this. So if I have said this please forgive me. but

please le t me know where I said it ( if I did).

What I meant by the 'same validation process' is taht they all 3 require to have

the tech find a site and pharmacist to validate the training and practice.

Secondly I think you ALL are getting the wrong idea about a certification course

onSteril Products preparation. It does not state that a peson would be a master

at preparing all types of IV's . It means however that a person could prepare

them self, a hood, and the equipment used to prepare sterile products.

The intent of such a course is to teach/train a person in proper aseptic

technque in order to prepare sterile products. IF in fact the programs use the

same check off list, then what does it matter as long as the person is prepared.

That is WHY the state of TEXAS accepted the CE/Cert of Attendance programs of

Pharm Ed. BEFORE NPTA certificate program existed they were not called

certification courses. NPTA may very well be using the same check off list. I

doubt it. NPTA uses a 10 point list and Pharm Ed uses a 12 point list. Whats on

the lists? Who knows??? Does 10 mean less in quality?? not if two points are

combined??? Any one know???

My POINT is ONLY NPTA has had the smarts to use the words that the 'industry'

has been asking for : " Certification " in Sterile Perparation : not CE or Cert of

Attendance!!! Just watch and see the programs change their titles. markmy

words. If you want to market and sell you are going to have to give what they

need or want. Other companies and perhaps Pharm Ed will change. Pergaps not.

Depends upon sales and if what they sell is useful and adequate.

I will not entertain any more about NPTA making money off of techs while other

companies are doing the same, and for good reason, to further the profession to

certifiy techs aseptic technique. Can they wash their hands well? Can they

prepare adn clean a hood aseptically? do they know about air flow and how to

manipulate their hands? Do they understand how to organize materials in the

hood? etc. See the outline that New Mexico has. Now if the tech can do all this

and knows about this then he or she is 'ready' to go to a hospital to get hired

to be FURTHER TRAINED !!!!

End of story.

On this site lets get back to basics: Answering PTCB study questions.

Let's move this topic back to Tech Lectures where Joe, Dora and can make

all the statements they want. I am pulling the plug on this because it is

distracting to my intent of my site. It served a purpose:

1. Buyer beware

2. You get what you pay for (Cert vs Ce vs Attendance

3. Informing all of where one can obtain sucha cert.

Any honest new information and or questions regarding ithis topic can and will

be

posted.

Any old rehashing of NPTA bashing or other companies offering such a service so

that techs can get their feet in the hospital door is just plain motivated by

malice and forethought. Therefore ENOUGH is ENOUGH!!

END OF STORY!!

Most Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS Chem

Pharm Tech Educator

Founder/Owner

Pottruff <jennycpht@...> wrote:

Hello,

I have a question. If Pharm Ed. and NAPT have the same text to use and use the

same validation list to be checked by a Pharmacists, and Pharm Ed. is only a

certificate of completion where as NAPT is a certification couse, is that really

a certification course. I would think that if it could be considered a

certification course, then Pharm Ed. would also consider it the same since they

both use the same text and have the same validation check list.

It doesn't make sense to me that if they are the same but one is only considered

CE and the other somehow is a certification, that seems strange. I have

actually talked to Pharm Ed. before and he explained what the check list

includes and to me it is not enough to be a certification for Sterile products

preparation.

If there are any other differences I missed please do let me know. Also, did

you manage to get the website to work?

CPhT

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS Chemistry <rxjm2002@...> wrote:

Dear Mr Joe Medina,

I see that you have once again joined this site.

I respect all your good work Joe. You are a true advocate. You

continue to help many technicians and students. However, sometimes

you bark when you should not be barking. Or at least you bark in the

wrong direction! I think this is one of those times:

I ask you to question your own judgement on the validity of NPTA

practical aspect of certification process. NPTA states clearly that

it does not do this part of the certification process, but rather

leaves this to a practicing licensed pharmacist, which is slightly

different than NMSHP which states it uses a " NMSHP approved

instructor " . It is interesting to note that NPTA's validity process

is identical to that of of Pharm Ed or Pharmacy Education

Resources.

Further if you will read the area near the summary of my previous

post you will note that Texas has already approved two similar

programs. Both of which have a validation process identical to that

of NPTA. The difference being that they do not call the programs a

Certificate in the IV or Aseptic Technique or Sterile Product Prep,

but simply CE or Cert of Attendance. Why is that? Is it because the

programs just are not up to par? Or is it because the other two

programs do not want to take responsibility? Or is it because

Certification was not a requirement at the time the programs were

initiated???

I personally would like to see a longer program. I do not think that

40 hours is enough. But who are you and I do disagree with TEXAS

law??

It is interesting to me that you PICK on NPTA ALL the time....see

your own site and comments there....but you always fail to mention

the other guys out there that are also charging techs and

pharmacists for the same thing!!!! You did not mention the fact that

Pharm Ed or Pharmacy Education Resources has the very same program.

Oh except for the fact that they give only a cert of attendance.

While it is true that NPTA program costs about twice as much, you

get what you pay for: a Certificate in IV Sterile Prep vs CE or Cert

of Attendance.

If your statements regarding NPTA's validity process are to be taken

as truth and concern, then you MUST have the SAME concerns for the

validity process of Pharm Ed or PER programs, not to mention

NMSHP's.

Let's face it, others have done the research and found that this

validation process is good acceptable and will satisfy the state's

needs (NW and Tx).

While I argue the length of all three programs' and not the quality

or the content, you only argue the validity process of ONE program.

I ask you to research the three that I have and give one of the two

following opinions:

1. I, Joe Medina, concede that there are other programs that take

money from techs, NPTA being twice as high, and I question the

validity process of all of them.

or

2. I, Joe Medina, concede that there are other programs that provide

sterile product preparation, with the same validation process, but

only one, that from NPTA, that yields a true certification for such,

even though they may be accepted by TSHP or Texas BOP. This may be

why NPTA charges so much.

Joe knowing you as well as I do, you are not capable of making a

decision between comments 1 or 2 ONLY. You will tack on your own

ammendment which will undoubtedly paint NPTA once again as a

villian. You always do. You do this even though your readers have

counted the many, many times that you say you will not.

All I ask of you is to do research BEFORE you make statements that

are broad and could be applied to any number of associations,

businesses or organizations.

Cost? you want to talk about cost? Okay I agree NPTA is twice as

much. But what is the tech getting for that? Is it worth it? What do

you want your paper to certify? What does the tech need it to state

to get a job in their particular state??? Attendance or

Accomplishment?

In addition I will take this opportunity to remind you and everyone

else, that this site is not here to bash any particular program or

book or ce offering. However I do take constructive criticizm

seriously. So if you want to further discuss the pros and cons of

these programs please remember only in a productive manner. No

bashing!

I am going to also attempt to address your NPTA BASHING:

1. " With the for profit million dollar business NPTA monopolizing

our profession, I am sure what I say has no deviation in its

capability to make a great deal of money off of their IV

Certification program. " Joe Medina

First of all since this is the good old USA NPTA, LIKE Techlectuers

has the right to make money and to be a business. One may not like

the buisness or the owner, but it is legal to make a profit.

Second of all NPTA is not monopolizing the profession. If it were

there would not be other companies or organizations out there that

are offering the same or similar educational programs. They just

happen to be the only one AT THIS time that offers a Certificate of

accomplishment not just a CE or cert of attendance. Smart huh??

2. " For now all I see is a 20.00 manual and binder being offered

for a fee of 395.00 that is expensive for the average Pharmacy

Technician. "

Joe Medina

First of all I have NO CLUE where you got the price of $20 for this

mannual. I tried to find a price online and I could not find one. It

simply is not listed. I believe because the course is offered with

it in all instances. So how do YOU KNOW what the price is.

Secondly we are back to any business in USA is allowed to charge

what it wants except pharmacy. They are allowed to gouge even if it

means no one will buy from them.

Thirdly you underestimate the American public and certainly the

American Pharmacy Tech or student. If they want a service they will

either randomly choose one or they will investigate. Those that

investigate for educational purposes only will probably go with the

cheapest one; while those that investigate for the speicific words

of certification on the paper they get will probably go with NPTA or

any other in the future that provides such that is cheaper.

Fourth: You fail to recall or mention that NPTA once did offer its

own certification for the prohibative $1000. It was prohibative

because one had to fly to Texas for the physical aspect amd because

they had to set up the location of hands on at a facility.

Fifth: If you offered your own it would have to be ACPE approved to

be competitive, but you state that you would never do this. It

would also have to be expensive if you were to fly from state to

state or you would only be able to offer it in one area of Colorado

which means it would be cost prohibative for the tech outside of

Colorado. Back to square one!

Joe I hope you do come up with an IV Certification Program that can

be validated by you alone and can be cheap enough for the average

tech. I have thought about this idea for a long time. Outside of the

mobile lab that Dora came up with I have no other idea that can keep

the cost down. More power to you if you are able and capable of

doing this.

In my state IV Certification is not required because schools and

military have their own training and education and also hospitals

take care of their own upon hire. Those with PTCB only after Jan

2004 will need some type of certification. I think schools are the

answer to provide the foundation andmock labs, with a live on hands

component later.

I do hope that you accept this post in the positive spirit in which

it is delivered. I stay away from commenting on what I disagree with

you on your site. But once you travel to my site, if I disagree with

you I will definitely NOT KEEP QUIET!!

With Respect,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS Chem

Pharm Tech Educator

Founder/Owner of this site.

> Hi Dora,

>

> I have wondered about the validity of the NPTA IV Certification

> program due to it not involving a VALID practical aspect of

> certification of which I would think would be even more necessary

> than the didactic aspect.

>

> I am not saying the IV certification program is necessarily bad. I

> am just saying that the program lacks a true practical aspect that

> can be monitored for consistency and validity. For now all I see is

> a 20.00 manual and binder being offered for a fee of 395.00 that is

> expensive for the average Pharmacy Technician. Especially when the

> Pharmacy Technician is ON THEIR OWN in obtaining the practical

> aspect required.

>

> This is just my own personal view. I am sure with all of the

> Pharmacy Technicians in need of IV Certification, NPTA will be

there

> and they will make much money in the offering of their program. But

> again, does this offering fulfill the need of the Pharmacy

Technician

> or is it just another opportunity for NPTA to make hard earned

money

> off of Pharmacy Technicians?

>

> With the for profit million dollar business NPTA monopolizing our

> profession, I am sure what I say has no deviation in its capability

> to make a great deal of money off of their IV Certification

program.

> But if I were to offer one of my own, I would include the practical

> aspect as well. As mentioned many times before in my postings, it

> is one thing to know about aseptic technique and another to

actually

> do aseptic technique.

>

> Respectfully,

> Joe Medina, CPhT

>

September 24, 2004

Dear jenny,

Yes that is what I said too! One who has worked in IV's or is working in IV's to

have a place for you to practice and train also.

Here on Campus I have two hoods for my students to practice with, IV syringes,

needles bags and bottles. I also have REAL Med bottles or vials. but of course

the meds have been removed. I also have fake drug for mixing. This is why WE are

ASHP approved/accredited to teach sterile products preparation and aseptic

technique. They are given many more hours of training than 40.

Recently had a hospital ask for certification of aseptic technique for my

students. I will only give completion of the course and hours completed and a

grade. Why? because I believe that our work on campus only 'prepares' the

student to train FURTHER in the hood in a REAL setting which will lend to and

determine proficiency.

I hope that I have made myself clear. I AM AN INSTRUCTOR WITH A CREDENTIAL TO

TEACH EXACTLY WHAT NPTA AND PHARM TECH ARE CERTIFYING!!!AND IN FACT THE STUDENT

DIPLIOMA states this.

What I DID say is tht I do not believe that an EXPERT in IV compounding is

required to teach aseptic technique, but rather one who is practicing or one who

has practiced in the field of IV's.

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS Chem

Founder/Owner

Pottruff <jennycpht@...> wrote:

Hello,

I would think that you would have to get a pharmacist working in a hospital or

IV setting to sign off (if you were actually going to do the work) because of

the nature of the list that the student must complete. Most of them couldn't be

done in a retail setting.

CPhT

Jeanetta Mastron <rxjm2002@...> wrote:

Dear Joe,

I do not think that your last post is NPTA bashing per se.

Actually I appreciate your concession. FINALLY! Thank you!

As I HAVE ALREADY stated I am concerned with the amount of time spent in the

training. To me 40 hours is not enough time.

Now as far as your concern and that of Dora, regarding 'who' is doing the

validation, well I think it is very possible that a pharmacist who is geared and

practicing more in retail may sign someone off. But I do hope that the

pharmacist who signs off must be actively practicing in a hospital or IV

setting. After all the student MUST make such products in a hood to get signed

off.

Since pharmacy is the number 2 ( used to be #1) trusted profession, I for one

have better faith than the two of you or I am just plain nuts or too

trustworthy and naive???.

I think it is " NPTA " bashing when the only company or org that you can find

fault with is " NPTA " .

I personally can be a poster child for any organization that does well by techs!

That includes AAPT, CSHP ASHP. ACPE, NPTA etc and I will continue to fight

against any thing said negatively that is not true or not substantiated on MY

site. I am and have always been for the little guy and for all recognition and

education for technicians.

Say what you like on your site Joe, that is your perogotive. I am actually happy

to have you here so that I can set the record straight on anything you may say

that is incorrect or not substantiated about ANY organization! As I WILL NOT

do so on your site. That would be JOE bashing!

When it comes to NPTA you just do not see straight! But I hope to set the

record straight whenever I can. Howver I call 'em as I sees 'em! So if and when

you ever say anything that is correct about NPTA, if NPTA were to be wrong in a

given issue, I will be the first to applaud and to agree with you! Just as I

would about any other entity.

Respectfully,

Tech Advocacy Poster Child

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BSChem

Founder/Owner

PS for those who do not know Mr Joe Medina and I we go back a long way and we

have counter pointed each other many atime in the past. Fior the most part we

agree on many tech issues. I beieve I speak for both of us when I say, we both

hope that no one reads animosity inour posts, but rather jest, opinion, chide,

professional critisicm and fun.Of course in my case FACT !

Joe Medina <techlectures@...> wrote:

Hi Jeanetta,

I do accept your post in the positive spirit and do concede that I

did not take other offerings into consideration. From your postings

on this subject, since the SAME book is used, I do get the sense that

the fee of 395.00 is mainly because NPTA offers a Certificate of

Completion. So in essence the Pharmacy Technician is paying for a

piece of paper.

My main concern was that the practical aspect of training is the part

of which the Technician must do on their own and there is NO validity

in what they get. This I find unfair to the individual Pharmacy

Technician who may or may not be getting the proper practical

training required.

I suppose I too could enter the bandwagon in the offering of a

manual / binder and having the Technician find their own practical

training. I of course would charge much less because it is the fair

thing to do especially for the little I would offer.

As an " NPTA Poster Child " , I can understand your stance and need to

glorify this organization, but also as an individual who cares about

our profession, you too must have concern about what NPTA or OTHER

organizations current offerings.

If this is bashing NPTA, then I apologize. I am just pointing out

the fact that not all is at it appears.

Respectfully,

Joe Medina, CPhT

http://www.techlectures.com

-----------