Re: Discussion on CE's

October 5, 2008

Funny you should ask!

Recently I was at the Walgreens site and I found many CE's but only a few are

for techs. The SAME problem was at the APhA site which sends you to My CE.

Yeah so what are you all interested in?

I love pharmacist CE too, but as I predicted in my Article of April 17, 2006

Drug Topics: Don't deny techs CE's for pharmacists! in their Viewpoint.

I am not allowed to copy and paste it here.

But if you go to Drug Topics and put that title ormy name in the search engine

you will find it.

Shortly after that ACPE contacted me for a copy of my article since they knew of

it but could not find it.

The following Print Friendly version of online document link was once active, bu

tsince Drug Topics ahas gone totally electronic I do not beielve that this link

will work:

http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=319169

Preventing Technicians form doing pharmacist CE is the WORSE possible decision

ACPE or anyone else could have made. Why? because it pervents professional

growth for those techs who ARE educated or very experienced or both who need

more stimulation than the basics.

Techs should be allowed to do any CE that they can understand and pass the 70 or

80% requirement as long as it is not on counseling per se. MANY techs have BS

biology, chemistry A & P backgroundsn and CAN understand much fo the technical

stuff EVEN if they are not going to actually use it to counsel a patient or

educate a doctor or nurse. But it is good to keep up and be able to prevent med

errors.

Many techs who donot have that background can also understand some very

technical topics.

So Jule you hit the nail on the head for me. But I too am interested in what is

out there for techs of any real substance. I am tired of learning about

rhinitis!

Any techs out there having problems with the P/T designation? I am! Not so much

at the beginning of the year, but NOW I am! or are you havign problems finding

specific subjects that are for techs?

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

From: Jule Barta <julebarta@...>

Subject: Discussion on CE's

Date: Sunday, October 5, 2008, 9:49 PM

A while ago there was some discussion on Tech vs Pharmacist CE¢s

In my class I assign students to complete CE¢s but they often have a hard

time finding tech only CE¢s that are free and many don¢t feel they get much

out of pharmacist CE¢s since they are over their heads as students.

I am curious are others having a hard time finding online tech only CE¢s?

Also what subjects are you most interested in and would like to learn more

about?

I know for me I am tired of doing Law CE¢s on HIPAA and Medicare part D but

what else is there?

Julette Barta CPhT, BSIT, MA Ed.

Pharmacy Instructor

CRY-ROP

PO Box 8640

1214 Indiana Ct.

Redlands, CA 92374

Cell 951-741-4011 Fax 909-793-6901

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date: 11/14/2007

9:27 AM

October 6, 2008

Thanks Jeanette! As you know I agree that we should be able to complete any

CE, training/seminar etc that we can understand and pass.

My biggest problem with most pharmacist CE is that it does not pertain to

us. While I do learn I spend a lot of time sorting through information that

I would not necessarily use in a pharmacy. I would much rather do several 1

hour CE’s that go over the essential information (plus a bit more) that I

need to know than to spend 2 or more hours sorting through medical jargon

that I probably would not use. I tend to focus on CE’s that cover pharmacy

practice than pharmacology but I am tired of HIPAA, USP 797 and customer

service.

Perhaps if we start discussing what we want some of the big organizations

will listen.

Julette Barta CPhT, BSIT, MA Ed.

Pharmacy Instructor

CRY-ROP

PO Box 8640

1214 Indiana Ct.

Redlands, CA 92374

Cell 951-741-4011 Fax 909-793-6901

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date: 11/14/2007

9:27 AM

October 6, 2008

Dear Jule,

Thanks for your input Jule!

I personally love pharmacology and teach it in depth to my students. So I find

myself using and wanting pharmacology for pharmacists and I do feel what I learn

is necessary to prevent medication errors. You and I agree about the CE's for

pharmacists and our emphasis is different. Being a hospital tech I really get

into the pharmacology. I have used about 95% of every thing of the pharmacology

I have learned! Especially ABX's.

Good idea about what do we want!

I want different Law!

I want more pharmacology to prevent errors.

I want more about med error prevention!

I want more on Robotics!

Any one else?

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

F/O

From: Jule Barta <julebarta@...>

Subject: Re: Discussion on CE's

Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 2:55 PM

Thanks Jeanette! As you know I agree that we should be able to complete any

CE, training/seminar etc that we can understand and pass.

My biggest problem with most pharmacist CE is that it does not pertain to

us. While I do learn I spend a lot of time sorting through information that

I would not necessarily use in a pharmacy. I would much rather do several 1

hour CE¢s that go over the essential information (plus a bit more) that I

need to know than to spend 2 or more hours sorting through medical jargon

that I probably would not use. I tend to focus on CE¢s that cover pharmacy

practice than pharmacology but I am tired of HIPAA, USP 797 and customer

service.

Perhaps if we start discussing what we want some of the big organizations

will listen.

Julette Barta CPhT, BSIT, MA Ed.

Pharmacy Instructor

CRY-ROP

PO Box 8640

1214 Indiana Ct.

Redlands, CA 92374

Cell 951-741-4011 Fax 909-793-6901

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date: 11/14/2007

9:27 AM

October 6, 2008

Hi Everyone,

JMHO, but I prefer the pharmacist CE. I'll do any that come my way. If

for some reason, I find one that is too clinical for me, I'll skip it.

I'd much rather spend an hour on pharmacology than 5 minutes on blood

glucose monitors.

I find technician designated CE embarrassingly dumbed down. I do look

them over but I am usually insulted that this is the best they (the

authors, whoever is responsible) think that we as technicians can

handle.

I learn so much more from pharmacist CE. And I know that makes me a

better technician than most of the technicians I have worked with. I

watch silently from the sidelines as other certified techs I know,

scramble at the last minute to do all the ce they need for

recertification at one time, looking for the easiest way out. Now,

really, what do you learn from that? Who can cram the best?

I don't really have a preference for subject matter. I usually find

several on the same topic. (This last time I focused on Parkinson's

disease.) By doing several on the same topic, I gather a much broader

understanding of the subject. And since I do them year round, I

usually have done much more than the requirement for recertification.

Sincerely,

-NJ

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Jule Barta wrote:

> Thanks Jeanette! As you know I agree that we should be able to

> complete any

CE, training/seminar etc that we can understand and pass.

My biggest problem with most pharmacist CE is that it does not pertain

to

us. While I do learn I spend a lot of time sorting through information

that

I would not necessarily use in a pharmacy. I would much rather do

several 1

hour CEï¿½s that go over the essential information (plus a bit more) that

I

need to know than to spend 2 or more hours sorting through medical

jargon

that I probably would not use. I tend to focus on CEï¿½s that cover

pharmacy

practice than pharmacology but I am tired of HIPAA, USP 797 and customer

service.

Perhaps if we start discussing what we want some of the big

organizations

will listen.

Â

Julette Barta CPhT, BSIT, MA Ed.

Pharmacy Instructor

CRY-ROP

PO Box 8640

1214 Indiana Ct.

Redlands, CA 92374

Cell 951-741-4011 Fax 909-793-6901

Â

Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date:

11/14/2007

9:27 AM

Â

October 7, 2008

This is an interesting discussion. From the national meetings I've

attended, there is increased interest in providing CE for

technicians. I get asked often by the publishers what they can do

better for techs...so tell me. What kinds of CE would you like to

see? What else could these publishers do for you that isn't being

met now?

Becky

>

> > Thanks Jeanette! As you know I agree that we should be able to

> > complete any

> CE, training/seminar etc that we can understand and pass.

> My biggest problem with most pharmacist CE is that it does not

pertain

> to

> us. While I do learn I spend a lot of time sorting through

information

> that

> I would not necessarily use in a pharmacy. I would much rather do

> several 1

> hour CEï¿½s that go over the essential information (plus a bit

more) that

> I

> need to know than to spend 2 or more hours sorting through medical

> jargon

> that I probably would not use. I tend to focus on CEï¿½s that cover

> pharmacy

> practice than pharmacology but I am tired of HIPAA, USP 797 and

customer

> service.

> Perhaps if we start discussing what we want some of the big

> organizations

> will listen.

> Â

> Julette Barta CPhT, BSIT, MA Ed.

> Pharmacy Instructor

> CRY-ROP

> PO Box 8640

> 1214 Indiana Ct.

> Redlands, CA 92374

> Cell 951-741-4011 Fax 909-793-6901

> Â

>

> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.

> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date:

> 11/14/2007

> 9:27 AM

> Â

>

October 7, 2008

Dear Ms Rabbitt,

Allow techs to take Pharmacist's CE!!!!

IF the Tech can't pass the CE then he or she will not get credit.

IF the Tech can pass then he/she gets credit AND the tech has learned something,

even if it is just one thing new! and he/she gets to feel like she or he has

grown instead of feeling stagnant. Allow the tech to make their own decision if

he or she is capable of understanding the RPh material and STILL definitely

provide CE that is geared to the tech at varying levels......BECAUSE TECHS do

not have the SAME basic background or tech education,experience or exposure.

UNTIL laws change to give them the exact same education and training then we may

have some common gournd among us but we do not at this time!

So ther eneeds to be foundational CE for those who self studied for the CPhT

exams, as well as some basic tech CE for all techs, AND some intermediate level

and some advanced CE that I would say should be Pharmacist CE.

Techs KNOW what they can handle or not. YES some maybe even much of the RPh CE

is over the heads of most of the techs, bUT there ARE some techs who CAN

understand complicated material BECAUSE they do have the education that IS even

higher than tech school or more experience!!! Give us a break

I went to one site that had some really GREAT CE that I was interested in. But

they clearly wrote in RED that this CE is not for techs! Guess what ? WE ALL DID

THE CE TOGETHER IN MY CLASSROOM pretending to be RPh's! And we got 100%!!!! And

the students were ALL in the ROP high school class most under 18 yrs old! Techs

are not that stupid tht they can not understand law! The topic was e-pedigree!

Now that does NOT take the background of a pharmacist to understand! My best

friend is a manicurist and she understood it just fine! Give us a break! We WANT

our RPh CE BACK! Why the hell did they take it away?

YES we NEED CE just for Techs and at what we call Tech level! But that is not

ALL we need!

I like Pharm Con because they allow techs to take some CE that is for

Pharmacists.

Theydo this by providing the exact same number but wth a P or T at the end.

Other companies have taken this just WAY to far to dummy down CE and give it

onlu to Techs with a T.and to prevent techs from talking any Ce that has the

word pharmacist inthe title.

EXCUSE me but who will be calling for a prior auth? the tech or the RPh? I'd say

that is a P/T CE , but many companies that provide CE call that a P CE. This

rating should be used ONLY to tell a pharmacist that the CE the are about to do

is for TECHs only and that they will not get credit as it is too basic. P CE

should serve to tell the pharmacist that he or she is taking a RPh CE and will

get credit. Techs should be allowed to take any CE that will allow them to grow

professionally, personally, consider becoming a pharmacist or not, learn more

about the responsibilites of the pharmacist to respect their work load and

mental exhaustion of counseling, clinical pharmacy etc, and to teach them to

assit the pharmacist better in all tha tthey do. HOW can we expect a tech to

assist the pharmacist better if we are kept out of learning what is new for

them, what they are expected to do?

This new desigation is great for the beginning Tech, the uneducated tech, all

techs to learn tech specific duties, (which are still the responsibility of the

RPh), and to keep pharmacists from getting easy CE with no professional

development.

I am so mad about this topic you can not believe how mad I am. I would not be

the GREAT teacher (if I have to pat myself on the back I will!) that I knwo I am

and my gold medal winners prove that I am, IF it were not for three things:

1. My GREAT education at Cerritos Community College in Norwalk California

'84-'89

2. GREAT young Pharmacists '89-'95 who answered every question I had about

pharmacology while working on the job as a tech and who knew the more I knew the

less med errors I would make the better I could assist them and did nto think I

was out to take their jobs and who knew that I couldn't any way and also were

great teachers/mentors and who I owe much to at Long Beach Community Hospital!

3.My determination to continue my pharmacy education to be the BEST tech and

subsequently teacher I could be, by attending LIVE CE then eventually writing

and speakig or presenting CE ANd that CE was CE for pharmacists. I rarely attend

CE for techs because I am tired of learning how to clean a hood. (the only thing

that broke that cycle is USP 797 Thank God! and I have paid over $150 to get USP

797 CE from that BEST author you can get! The originator himself!).

So let's talk about WHY techs should not be allowed to take CE for Pharmacists?

Are they afraid we might learn somthing? Are they afraid some of us may want to

become pharmacists and help with the shortage? Are they so stupid that they do

not recognize that prevention of job growth, personal grown and professional

growth is the number one way to higher TECH JOB TURNOVER??? What does it take?

PTCB gets it! they allow techs to take adn they accept CE for pharmacists on a

Techs recertification form. Right now you can probably find some that are ready

to expre or were made at the last of 2007 that may have a year or two left. But

they are rare. These CE do not have pharmacist rating only. Other companies go

saavy and added a P after these older CE numbers which prevents us from using

them. But come NEXT year and we will be hit HARD with CRAP that I don't need and

as you can see many educatorson thsi site do not need, as well as very

expereicned techs do not need and many educated techs do not need to RELEARN.

I personally provide CE at beginner's level because we need it for many techs.

i also provide CE for intermediate level and advanced tech level. However I NEED

and MANY of my fellow techs need RPh CE in order to GROW!

I can not expect my graduates to be ready for CE at the SAME exact level that I

can understand! HOW coud they be?

But I have to PROVIDE CE for the beginners because who else will? Techlectures

does, and Tech Topics does , NPTA and AAPT does. But not every tech will join

an organization.

So there is not much out there that does not cost an arm and a leg . But if I

am going to teach and develop/present CE for techs then I have to take higher

CE. Techs at this level learn from other techs BETTER than from pharmacists AND

I can provide a role model and a goal for them to attain.

PLEASE Ms Rabbit if YOU can take any message back to ANY organization about tech

CE PLEASE on behalf of the MANY techs onthis site who want and need CE at

advanced and RPh level we need that message heard LOUD and Clear. Also we STiLL

need Tech level and Tech Specific CE these are two different things.

Please advocate this any where someone will listen to you! on our behalf! i

tried with my article, I tried with ACPE and I believe many there understood,

but it was just misinterpreted by CE companies!

Thank you for asking and for listening (reading) any thing any one on this site

could possibly write in favor of varying degree of difficulty/ease CE for techs.

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS Chemistry

Pharm Tech Program Director/Educator

Founder/Owner of this site

PSI KNOW that this is emotional and not written calmly, but isn't that the

point!? That is me, and I have to write when it is on my mind and how it is

affecting me.

PTCB will accept CE that has been done by you that has a P on it. But you may

have a problem being allowed to take that CE from a company that prevents techs

from taking that CE.

From: rebecca_rabbitt <rebecca_rabbitt@...>

Subject: Re: Discussion on CE's

Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 3:15 PM

This is an interesting discussion. From the national meetings I've

attended, there is increased interest in providing CE for

technicians. I get asked often by the publishers what they can do

better for techs...so tell me. What kinds of CE would you like to

see? What else could these publishers do for you that isn't being

met now?

Becky

>

> > Thanks Jeanette! As you know I agree that we should be able to

> > complete any

> CE, training/seminar etc that we can understand and pass.

> My biggest problem with most pharmacist CE is that it does not

pertain

> to

> us. While I do learn I spend a lot of time sorting through

information

> that

> I would not necessarily use in a pharmacy. I would much rather do

> several 1

> hour CEï¿½s that go over the essential information (plus a bit

more) that

> I

> need to know than to spend 2 or more hours sorting through medical

> jargon

> that I probably would not use. I tend to focus on CEï¿½s that cover

> pharmacy

> practice than pharmacology but I am tired of HIPAA, USP 797 and

customer

> service.

> Perhaps if we start discussing what we want some of the big

> organizations

> will listen.

> Â

> Julette Barta CPhT, BSIT, MA Ed.

> Pharmacy Instructor

> CRY-ROP

> PO Box 8640

> 1214 Indiana Ct.

> Redlands, CA 92374

> Cell 951-741-4011 Fax 909-793-6901

> Â

>

> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.

> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date:

> 11/14/2007

> 9:27 AM

> Â

>

October 7, 2008

thank you Jeanetta!

Becky, I'd recommend you print this out and thell the rep or whoever is asking

you that this is what we as techs want/need in CE

From: rebecca_rabbitt <rebecca_rabbitt>

Subject: [JeanettasPTCBStudy Group] Re: Discussion on CE's

JeanettasPTCBStudyG roup@groups .com

Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 3:15 PM

This is an interesting discussion. From the national meetings I've

attended, there is increased interest in providing CE for

technicians. I get asked often by the publishers what they can do

better for techs...so tell me. What kinds of CE would you like to

see? What else could these publishers do for you that isn't being

met now?

Becky

>

> > Thanks Jeanette! As you know I agree that we should be able to

> > complete any

> CE, training/seminar etc that we can understand and pass.

> My biggest problem with most pharmacist CE is that it does not

pertain

> to

> us. While I do learn I spend a lot of time sorting through

information

> that

> I would not necessarily use in a pharmacy. I would much rather do

> several 1

> hour CEï¿½s that go over the essential information (plus a bit

more) that

> I

> need to know than to spend 2 or more hours sorting through medical

> jargon

> that I probably would not use. I tend to focus on CEï¿½s that cover

> pharmacy

> practice than pharmacology but I am tired of HIPAA, USP 797 and

customer

> service.

> Perhaps if we start discussing what we want some of the big

> organizations

> will listen.

> Â

> Julette Barta CPhT, BSIT, MA Ed.

> Pharmacy Instructor

> CRY-ROP

> PO Box 8640

> 1214 Indiana Ct.

> Redlands, CA 92374

> Cell 951-741-4011 Fax 909-793-6901

> Â

>

> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.

> Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date:

> 11/14/2007

> 9:27 AM

> Â

>

October 8, 2008

Thanks for sharing...believe me....I feel the passion!

Let me clarify for all that ICPT DOES and always has accepted

pharmacist CE for recertification. More information on what kinds of

CE are acceptable are outlined in the ExCPT Candidate's Guide under

Recertification (www.nationaltechexam.org/excptinfo.shtml).

Actually, if the CE is related to the profession (as we assume

technicians are good judges of that), it is accepted. That includes

college credit.

The new designation of " P " and " T " CE by ACPE was after the

acceptance of policy by the ICPT Governing Committee. Any change to

the existing policy would have to be discussed, debated and adopted

by the Certification Governing Committee before it became policy.

And, I would imagine IF the policy were to change it would

incorporate a time period before it became effective.

The challenge we've had in the past is that the CE needs to be

available and accessible to the technician population. Until

recently, there was very little CE written for the technician. Now

that there are designations, ACPE requires two sets of objectives for

a program that is for both pharmacist and technician audiences.

Sometimes this is good and sometimes (as has been pointed out)

authors have missed the mark. ACPE did not make programs that were

already accredited go back get designations. So, in actuality, there

are programs with and without designations, for awhile.

Publishers are interested in providing technician CE. Technicians

have an opportunity to let these publishers know what they want. The

point of my post was to solicit some ideas. What you have provided

Jeanetta are some great ideas.

Thanks

Becky

> >

> > > Thanks Jeanette! As you know I agree that we should be able to

> > > complete any

> > CE, training/seminar etc that we can understand and pass.

> > My biggest problem with most pharmacist CE is that it does not

> pertain

> > to

> > us. While I do learn I spend a lot of time sorting through

> information

> > that

> > I would not necessarily use in a pharmacy. I would much rather do

> > several 1

> > hour CEï¿½s that go over the essential information (plus a bit

> more) that

> > I

> > need to know than to spend 2 or more hours sorting through

medical

> > jargon

> > that I probably would not use. I tend to focus on CEï¿½s that

cover

> > pharmacy

> > practice than pharmacology but I am tired of HIPAA, USP 797 and

> customer

> > service.

> > Perhaps if we start discussing what we want some of the big

> > organizations

> > will listen.

> > Â

> > Julette Barta CPhT, BSIT, MA Ed.

> > Pharmacy Instructor

> > CRY-ROP

> > PO Box 8640

> > 1214 Indiana Ct.

> > Redlands, CA 92374

> > Cell 951-741-4011 Fax 909-793-6901

> > Â

> >

> > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.

> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.

> > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.31/1130 - Release Date:

> > 11/14/2007

> > 9:27 AM

> > Â

> >

October 8, 2008

Dear Ms Rabbit,

To YOUR credit, you have once again provided THIS site with GREAT information on

the process of accreditation and other pharmacy technician issues. I am honored

to have you as an active posting member of this online community.

In addition, I thank you for your kindness towards me, in my inadvertant

omission of the ICPT policy on accreditation. And I personally and publicly

thank you for addressing the question and posting the link to this information.

Thank you for your continued support of pharmacy technicians, by your mere

presence on this site.

Your wisdom and opinions are always welcome. YES! Even if they should differ

from mine!

Most Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Pharm Tech Educator

Founder/Owner of this site

From: rebecca_rabbitt <rebecca_rabbitt@...>

Subject: Re: Discussion on CE's

Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2008, 3:25 PM