New Article in Drug Topics-Should CPhT & RPh's Take the Same CE?

January 15, 2006

Hi Everyone,

Has anyone else read this article? I find it to be a bit disheartening. I am

reading between the lines here (and very possibly I am wrong) but it seems like

techs will have to do only tech designated CE. I myself (and I don't mean to

offend anyone here) find that most CE written specifically for techs is

" dumbed-down " a lot and I don't learn much from it. Unless I find an unusually

interesting topic, 99% of the CE I complete is NOT for techs.

Thoughts anyone,

Should R.Ph.s and techs take the same CEs?

Jan 9, 2006

By: Judy Chi

Drug Topics

What ACPE's CE numbers mean

Should pharmacists and technicians undergo the same continuing education

programs or should separate activities be set up for these two professionals?

This is a question the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) is

now grappling with as part of its drive to update its CE accreditation

standards. Dimitra Travlos, Pharm.D., BCPS, assistant executive director at

ACPE, gave attendees of the ASHP midyear meeting in Las Vegas an update on this

issue last month.

Driving this issue is the fact that more states now require technicians to be

certified and certification by the Pharmacy Technician Certification Board

(PTCB) involves taking a minimum of 20 hours of CE every two years. PTCB does

not require techs to obtain their CE from an accredited provider, but many

choose to do so. Out of the 400 accredited CE providers in this country, 56%

reported that technicians are among their participants.

For now, no verdict has been reached about whether CE content should vary for

pharmacists versus technicians. However, ACPE is proposing to use a different

designation for CE programs based on the type of professional who takes them.

This is how the revised system would work:

At present, each CE program has its own string of numbers to signify who the

provider is, whether it's a live program or home study, and the subject of the

CE (see example). Travlos said ACPE proposes to use the letter P to stand for

pharmacists in place of 0 before the Topic Designator. This means: P1 would be a

CE on drug therapy for pharmacists, P2 on AIDS, P3 on law, and P4 on general

pharmacy.

For technicians, ACPE proposes to use the letter T in lieu of 0. Thus: T1 would

be a CE on drug therapy for technicians, T2 on AIDS, and so on.

If a CE program is designed for both pharmacists and technicians, then ACPE

suggests using the letter B. Finally, if a CE activity is targeted at other

health professionals, such as doctors and nurses, the designation I for

interprofessional is recommended.

Travlos told the audience that ACPE has received a first round of comments on

its proposal from select CE providers. The ACPE board will meet this month to

review this feedback. Then a revised draft will go out for professionwide

comment. ACPE expects to finalize its CE accreditation standards in about a year

from now.

In other news, ASHP attendees at the ACPE update session learned the following:

Pilot tests will be conducted this year to explore how a continuing professional

development (CPD) approach differs from traditional CE. The pharmacy

associations in five states have expressed an interest in taking part in the CPD

pilots. They are Iowa, Indiana, North Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin. The

pilots will include 30 to 50 participants per state, plus a control group.

ACPE is also wrestling with revising its Pharm.D. accreditation standards. In a

second on-line survey of academia that ACPE has conducted, respondents rated 21

out of 30 draft standards as appropriate, but they were divided over the

remaining nine, reported ACPE executive director Vlasses. He added that

the ACPE board would be deliberating this issue this month and distributing

revised guidelines in January or February.

As a result of a directive ACPE issued last year, which bars manufacturers from

serving as CE providers or cosponsors, many drug companies are now simply

circumventing this barrier by offering programs that are non-CE-based. As one

attendee noted, when manufacturers were providers, ACPE at least had some

control over them. Now, ironically, ACPE has less control over manufacturers and

the many educational programs they offer.

In sum, Travlos said, those who wish to review the revised accreditation

standards for CE and the Pharm.D. degree should check out ACPE's Web site at

www.acpe-accredit.org/.

--

To love what you do and feel that

it matters - how could anything

be more fun? -- Graham

.. . . for my heart rejoiced in

all my labour . . . Ecclesiastes

2:10

January 15, 2006

,

I AGREE with you and believe that we MUST start a campaign toget the tech

points of view across. I would not have ass much knowledge if I continued to

read and attend the dumbed down CE. If any tech organization is FOR this then

they need to count out at least HALF of the members backing them. YOU and I and

many others on this site and many other sites believe the SAME Way!

IF there was a standard national minimun of education for techs, the current

CE would nto have to be dumbed down for any one!!! We would all be at the same

beginning level for CE , WHICH would nto be the dumbed down level.

Now because there are no min standards of education and because some states

do not even require PTCB or the study prep for it, many techs NEED the CE's

that ARE below the level of pharmacists and therefore these types of CE;s

should not be eliminated either. I have always felt that CE's should have a

'Level of understanding' scale on them so that beginning techs do not try to

take on more than they can chew and those with AS or BS or MANY years

experience and understanding can 'move on' in their education and continue to

LEARN instead of taking the a same old same old remedial stuff.

I find there is a necesity for the beginning foundation type of CE for the

new pharm tech and there is a need for advanced CE for the seasoned experience

or science educated pharm tech. Some of you may RECALL when I first POSTED my

CONCERNS over this VERY ISSUE when ACPE created a SEPARATE AND SPECIAL

APPROVAL for CE specifically for Techs. The purpose originially told to us was

so that pharmacists do not waste their time only to find out that it is not

accepted CE for them. That in my opinion was bull crap. I FEARED that the RIGHT

for the TECH to take on higher learning and CE woud be denied them and I

LOUDLY and VEHMENTLY posted this on PTCB , Pharmacy Island, Techlectures and my

own Study Site. This was about 2 years ago.

So if you would like to spear head a campaigne to bombard Drug Topics

AND MOREIMPORTANTLY ACPE!!!

My letter would be at your door step faster than a speeding bullet (er

email).

Thanks

Jeanetta

cphtgenius@... wrote: Hi Everyone,

Has anyone else read this article? I find it to be a bit disheartening. I am

reading between the lines here (and very possibly I am wrong) but it seems like

techs will have to do only tech designated CE. I myself (and I don't mean to

offend anyone here) find that most CE written specifically for techs is

" dumbed-down " a lot and I don't learn much from it. Unless I find an unusually

interesting topic, 99% of the CE I complete is NOT for techs.

Thoughts anyone,

Should R.Ph.s and techs take the same CEs?

Jan 9, 2006

By: Judy Chi

Drug Topics

What ACPE's CE numbers mean

Should pharmacists and technicians undergo the same continuing education

programs or should separate activities be set up for these two professionals?

This is a question the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) is

now grappling with as part of its drive to update its CE accreditation

standards. Dimitra Travlos, Pharm.D., BCPS, assistant executive director at

ACPE, gave attendees of the ASHP midyear meeting in Las Vegas an update on this

issue last month.

Driving this issue is the fact that more states now require technicians to be

certified and certification by the Pharmacy Technician Certification Board

(PTCB) involves taking a minimum of 20 hours of CE every two years. PTCB does

not require techs to obtain their CE from an accredited provider, but many

choose to do so. Out of the 400 accredited CE providers in this country, 56%

reported that technicians are among their participants.

For now, no verdict has been reached about whether CE content should vary for

pharmacists versus technicians. However, ACPE is proposing to use a different

designation for CE programs based on the type of professional who takes them.

This is how the revised system would work:

At present, each CE program has its own string of numbers to signify who the

provider is, whether it's a live program or home study, and the subject of the

CE (see example). Travlos said ACPE proposes to use the letter P to stand for

pharmacists in place of 0 before the Topic Designator. This means: P1 would be

a CE on drug therapy for pharmacists, P2 on AIDS, P3 on law, and P4 on general

pharmacy.

For technicians, ACPE proposes to use the letter T in lieu of 0. Thus: T1

would be a CE on drug therapy for technicians, T2 on AIDS, and so on.

If a CE program is designed for both pharmacists and technicians, then ACPE

suggests using the letter B. Finally, if a CE activity is targeted at other

health professionals, such as doctors and nurses, the designation I for

interprofessional is recommended.

Travlos told the audience that ACPE has received a first round of comments on

its proposal from select CE providers. The ACPE board will meet this month to

review this feedback. Then a revised draft will go out for professionwide

comment. ACPE expects to finalize its CE accreditation standards in about a

year from now.

In other news, ASHP attendees at the ACPE update session learned the

following:

Pilot tests will be conducted this year to explore how a continuing

professional development (CPD) approach differs from traditional CE. The

pharmacy associations in five states have expressed an interest in taking part

in the CPD pilots. They are Iowa, Indiana, North Carolina, Washington, and

Wisconsin. The pilots will include 30 to 50 participants per state, plus a

control group.

ACPE is also wrestling with revising its Pharm.D. accreditation standards. In

a second on-line survey of academia that ACPE has conducted, respondents rated

21 out of 30 draft standards as appropriate, but they were divided over the

remaining nine, reported ACPE executive director Vlasses. He added that

the ACPE board would be deliberating this issue this month and distributing

revised guidelines in January or February.

As a result of a directive ACPE issued last year, which bars manufacturers

from serving as CE providers or cosponsors, many drug companies are now simply

circumventing this barrier by offering programs that are non-CE-based. As one

attendee noted, when manufacturers were providers, ACPE at least had some

control over them. Now, ironically, ACPE has less control over manufacturers

and the many educational programs they offer.

In sum, Travlos said, those who wish to review the revised accreditation

standards for CE and the Pharm.D. degree should check out ACPE's Web site at

www.acpe-accredit.org/.

--

To love what you do and feel that

it matters - how could anything

be more fun? -- Graham

. . . for my heart rejoiced in

all my labour . . . Ecclesiastes

2:10

January 15, 2006

I highly recommend that you ALL check out the ACPE Web site at:

www.acpe-accredit.org

to review the revised accreditation standards for CE and the Pharm.D. degree.

I am reposting the basic site addy from the article that posted.

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Foundner/Owner

February 10, 2006

Apparently there was a poll on this topic.

I dug up some information and then I wrote to the EDITOR and gave a

piece of my mind:

http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=302963

Opinions are divided on whether technicians should take the same CEs

as pharmacists do or participate in programs of their own. An Instant

Poll posted in January on Drug Topics' Web site found that respondents

were almost deadlocked. Of the 618 votes that were cast, 44% said

different CE programs should be set up for the two professionals; 45%

said separate programs should be developed for technicians, but they

should also be allowed to take CEs for pharmacists; 9% said

technicians should be able to take the same CE programs as pharmacists

do; and 2% said they didn't care one way or the other.

http://www.drugtopics.com/drugtopics/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=302224

Regarding your January Instant Poll question on whether pharmacists

and technicians should take the same CE offerings, as long as our

techs are prohibited from using the technical information in the CE

courses, we should not require them to learn that information. For

example, if they cannot tell Mrs. to give little ny Tylenol

for fever, why require them to take courses that teach them that

Tylenol is useful for reducing fever? I love my technicians, and they

are all state and nationally certified. They need to be empowered to

use that knowledge to improve pharmacy care.

Boyd, R.Ph.

CVS/Pharmacy

Greenville, S.C.

daveboydjr@...

There is something seriously wrong with the attitude of pharmacists

toward their own profession! How can such a large percentage of R.Ph.s

feel that pharmacy techs should be able to take the same CE credit

exams as they do? All you pharmacists out there, have you forgotten

what your educational background entailed? To be a tech does not

require the educational background and expertise that a pharmacist

spends years of study as well as quite a large sum of money to obtain.

There is a definite purpose to be served by pharmacy techs, but let's

remember that they have limitations in their knowledge and skills.

Keep up that attitude, pharmacists, and you may find that in the

future, techs will rule! Never, never, demean your educational

background, which is impossible to compare to a tech's training. Or,

you may just see more techs around than pharmacists. Plus they are a

whole lot cheaper to hire.

Terry H. Needel, R.N.

NeedelTH@...

I am appalled by an RN who would deny pharmacy technicians continued

education that pharmacists attend or use JUST because they have NOT

attended a professional school and do not have the SAME education.

This is just pure scare tactics and unfortunately perhaps ignorance.

As a technician with a degree in chemistry and I have always attended

the pharmacist LIVE CE and have contributed in the participation as a

technician. I do identify myself as a tech in the event that my

question is basic to the pharmacists. But I can HONESTLY say if I had

NOT attended such classes, I would not have the information, knowledge

and education that I have in order to be the BEST pharm tech

instructor that I can be. Further I can impart very technical

information in an easier to follow manner and presentation than most

pharmacists can to my tech students BECAUSE I am a tech and because I

have attended such CE.

EVERY Pharmacist KNOWS that techs out number pharmacists already, by

the mere ratio changes that pharmacists and state boards have voted

in. Therefore `technicians gaining knowledge " does not equate to

`technicians taking over the pharmacists jobs " . Techs out umber

pharmacists already because the workload and RPh shortage has demanded

this, and because RPh's around the country have voted for their

professional organizations to represent them in state board meetings

to increase Tech to RPh ratios and yes to some extent because industry

had dictated it. What a scare tactic this nurse uses! And what may I

ask is it of her business? I take it that she would rather that her

CNA or MA or LVN NOT have further CE's because they are not RN's and

they would take over her job! How uneducated or how backwards, is this

analogy that Ms T. Needle makes? Every pharmacist KNOWS that one MUST

go to an accredited pharm school in order to become a pharmacist.

Attending a 1 to 3 hour live CE or doing an online CE is NOT going to

make a pharmacist. If it could I would be one by now!

My viewpoint on CE's for tech is this:

If the tech can handle the advanced information and can answer the CE

test with the accuracy required to pass then what is the problem with

the tech becoming more educated? This tech would make a better tech by

the mere fact that he or she will know/learn the importance of the

drug or procedure. Even if he or she does not learn ALL of what the CE

teaches she or he will absorb some information, which is called

learning, and as long as it is enough to pass the exam then it should

be considered applicable.

The only CE that a technician should not take is CE that is about that

which ONLY a pharmacist can do such as how to counsel. And yet even

this if presented in the correct manner could be a topic for techs.

After all it is the tech who must make sure that the RPh counsels the

pt. It is the tech who will ascertain the fact that the pt needs

counseling. IF the tech knows how important it is for a pt to have

counseling for a SPECIFIC drug and WHY, then she/he would be more apt

to make sure that the pt does not leave without it.

I would think any pharmacist would want to reduce error and have more

satisfied technicians so that they would stay on the job rather than

leave. Giving them goals and more information is one way to instill

job satisfaction and also possibly promote the tech to want to go to

pharm school, addressing the pharmacist shortage.

I would think that any RPh would want his techs to know how to handle

certain drugs like sulfa, PCN, Propecia and other drugs that need

special handling. Why does this education have to come ONLY from a

pharmacist and NOT from a CE? I have personally learned more about

LMWH's, ACE Inhibs, COX II Inhibs, Herbal Products , HIV drugs etc.

etc etc Because of my continued education, I have become a better

teacher, earning the National Educator of the Year awarded by NPTA

2002. I have authored many articles, CE's and textbook. I present CE's

as well. I am known for taking a difficult piece of information and

breaking it down into easier to understand information and also

addressing how it relates to technicians. Without taking CE's for

pharmacists I would not be able to do what I do best. I personally

know at least 50 techs around the states who also take pharmacist CE's

.. We all learn from them. Tech only CE bores us and the topics are

repetitive and rudimentary. This is NOT learning or continued

education, it is not growth, but rather stagnation!

What we want is to learn and stay motivated on a job that has very

little growth potential. We are NOT looking to replace the pharmacist,

but we would like to help the pharmacist dispense more efficiently,

effectively and avoid errors. To do this we need to know a lot more

than running a cash register and counting tablets.

The RN also states that techs are not required to go to school. Yes

this is correct. in all except 2 states. But does this make it correct

or acceptable? After all even that RN has a CNA or MA or LVN who has

gone to school as a requirement to assist her. WHO is she to deny the

same for pharmacists? Doctors have educated nurses assisting them.

Some CE or CME is for both Doctors and Nurses. According to this

nurse she should not be allowed to take that CME because she did not

go to the same school and does not have the same education as the MD.

How whacked is this way of thinking? So the physician has the

educated nurse, the nurse has the educated assistant, the pharmacist

has an uneducated assistant who is supposed to pass a PTCB exam in

about 1/3 of the states without education. Go figure!

I am a proponent of a NATIONAL minimum standard of education for

pharmacy technicians. This means that I believe that ALL techs should

attend an accredited technician program., in order to better assist

the pharmacist and to better avoid or catch medication errors AND

therefore to serve and protect the public BETTER.

I also believe that there are many new techs and techs without higher

learning capabilities that should be doing CE's that are written

specifically for technicians due either to topic or in a way that can

be explained in a rudimentary fashion for techs. I also believe that

these techs will need more advanced CE's once they have mastered the

entry level CE's, but who are still not able or ever will be to grasp

the pharmacist CE. Because of this I believe that humans (techs) know

there own capabilities and limitations to learn a specific style or

level of information. If a tech believes that it is too difficult, I

believe that tech will not attend the CE or do the online CE. In fact

they will stop. I have done this and I know that only a few techs have

attended the live CE that I have, most feeling like it is too advanced

for them.

Just think if we stifled the youth of the US? Where would this country

be now? Perhaps we already did! There are less teachers, pharmacists,

scientists etc and we have not been promoting education! Why would

any Pharmacist want to stifle the most serious of technicians and deny

an education of the very drugs that they are to handle, compound or

sell?? The mentality that just because the tech is not going to do the

counseling and therefore should not be privy to what the pharmacist

has to counsel on is ridiculous. After all the tech does apply the

auxiliary label.

Techs should not use their own judgment and techs need to have this CE

in the same room with other pharmacist so that they do learn WHY and

adhere to the law.

At first I was upset to learn that this CE article title may lead to

reversing all that has been built between techs and RPh's, then I got

upset to see that this RN has dug up a grave of scare tactics and an

archaic way of thinking for something that I believe she has little

knowledge or experience about.

My GOD the patients will know more than the technician!!! If OPRAH

only knew!!!

Thank you for letting me blow off some steam.

Respectfully,

Jeanetta Mastron, CPhT B S

AIHS Pharmacy Tech Program Director

>

> Hi Everyone,

>

> Has anyone else read this article? I find it to be a bit

disheartening. I am reading between the lines here (and very possibly

I am wrong) but it seems like techs will have to do only tech

designated CE. I myself (and I don't mean to offend anyone here)

find that most CE written specifically for techs is " dumbed-down " a

lot and I don't learn much from it. Unless I find an unusually

interesting topic, 99% of the CE I complete is NOT for techs.

>

> Thoughts anyone,

>

> Should R.Ph.s and techs take the same CEs?

>

> Jan 9, 2006

> By: Judy Chi

> Drug Topics

>

> What ACPE's CE numbers mean

>

> Should pharmacists and technicians undergo the same continuing

education programs or should separate activities be set up for these

two professionals? This is a question the Accreditation Council for

Pharmacy Education (ACPE) is now grappling with as part of its drive

to update its CE accreditation standards. Dimitra Travlos, Pharm.D.,

BCPS, assistant executive director at ACPE, gave attendees of the ASHP

midyear meeting in Las Vegas an update on this issue last month.

> Driving this issue is the fact that more states now require

technicians to be certified and certification by the Pharmacy

Technician Certification Board (PTCB) involves taking a minimum of 20

hours of CE every two years. PTCB does not require techs to obtain

their CE from an accredited provider, but many choose to do so. Out of

the 400 accredited CE providers in this country, 56% reported that

technicians are among their participants.

> For now, no verdict has been reached about whether CE content should

vary for pharmacists versus technicians. However, ACPE is proposing to

use a different designation for CE programs based on the type of

professional who takes them. This is how the revised system would work:

> At present, each CE program has its own string of numbers to signify

who the provider is, whether it's a live program or home study, and

the subject of the CE (see example). Travlos said ACPE proposes to use

the letter P to stand for pharmacists in place of 0 before the Topic

Designator. This means: P1 would be a CE on drug therapy for

pharmacists, P2 on AIDS, P3 on law, and P4 on general pharmacy.

> For technicians, ACPE proposes to use the letter T in lieu of 0.

Thus: T1 would be a CE on drug therapy for technicians, T2 on AIDS,

and so on.

> If a CE program is designed for both pharmacists and technicians,

then ACPE suggests using the letter B. Finally, if a CE activity is

targeted at other health professionals, such as doctors and nurses,

the designation I for interprofessional is recommended.

> Travlos told the audience that ACPE has received a first round of

comments on its proposal from select CE providers. The ACPE board will

meet this month to review this feedback. Then a revised draft will go

out for professionwide comment. ACPE expects to finalize its CE

accreditation standards in about a year from now.

> In other news, ASHP attendees at the ACPE update session learned the

following:

> Pilot tests will be conducted this year to explore how a continuing

professional development (CPD) approach differs from traditional CE.

The pharmacy associations in five states have expressed an interest in

taking part in the CPD pilots. They are Iowa, Indiana, North Carolina,

Washington, and Wisconsin. The pilots will include 30 to 50

participants per state, plus a control group.

> ACPE is also wrestling with revising its Pharm.D. accreditation

standards. In a second on-line survey of academia that ACPE has

conducted, respondents rated 21 out of 30 draft standards as

appropriate, but they were divided over the remaining nine, reported

ACPE executive director Vlasses. He added that the ACPE board

would be deliberating this issue this month and distributing revised

guidelines in January or February.

> As a result of a directive ACPE issued last year, which bars

manufacturers from serving as CE providers or cosponsors, many drug

companies are now simply circumventing this barrier by offering

programs that are non-CE-based. As one attendee noted, when

manufacturers were providers, ACPE at least had some control over

them. Now, ironically, ACPE has less control over manufacturers and

the many educational programs they offer.

> In sum, Travlos said, those who wish to review the revised

accreditation standards for CE and the Pharm.D. degree should check

out ACPE's Web site at www.acpe-accredit.org/.

>

> --

> To love what you do and feel that

> it matters - how could anything

> be more fun? -- Graham

>

> . . . for my heart rejoiced in

> all my labour . . . Ecclesiastes

> 2:10

>

February 10, 2006

Whew! who need's OPRAH, when we have Jeanetta!

Donna <><

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

there was a poll on this topic.