back to joe,Re: Studying drugs

[Guest guest]

Dear Joe,

Well I do not disagree with any of your points. But I can say it is

not a new chapter, but one we do not often read! You have

discussed this before that one is not truly qualified to be called

certified without having set foot in a pharmacy. I say one needs

foundational basic concepts and education before hands on mock lab

training and then apply this technique and knowledge/skill set to on

the job training of an externship.

Then in addition to a written exam (PTCB or exCPT or???) one must do a

lab practical exam. I first said this about 8 or 9 years ago on the

first PTCB message board and PI message board. I was the FIRST to

compare the test that should be for techs should be AT LEAST as

rigorous as the ones for a 'cosmetologist' commonly known as a

hairdresser. A Written test with law and a LAB Practical exam mixing

and combining products or recipes then application of that mixture or

product following standard operating procedures. My test (for

cosmetology) was done over a 2 day period with two 4 hrs sessions

each day.

Let's see techs use needles and syringes making a drug to be injected

into a human.

Hairdressers use scissors to cut hair.

Both sharp objects could cut the patron/patients body.

Only one object may deliver a lethal substance.....and yet the tech in

most states doe not have to go to school. But if they had......

Well I have to cut this short ( I know you are happy about that!)

However I will say other certification programs exist that operate in

similar fashion to each other. I really do not know what that is or

how they are run.

Jeanetta

>

> Hi Jeanetta,

>

> Now this opens up a new chapter as to the validity of being certified

> when no exact criteria is necessary in the taking of the national

> exam? In another words, anyone can take the exam, pass it, proudly

> place the " CPhT " behind their name....without even stepping foot in

> the pharmacy setting.

>

> For the consumer the " CPhT " behind an individuals name means they are

> proficient or skilled in their vocation, some may even believe them to

> be experts. But what is the true meaning behind the CPhT? For some

> it is proficiency, for many it may mean something entirely different.

> Look at the " open book " IV Certification programs, (i.e. NPTA

> 598.00), going around where exams are taken while looking for answers

> in a book and the practical aspect may or may not even be completed.

> One passes this and they are IV Certified, which again to the consumer

> means proficiency, but the reality is much different. Good example:

> An IV Technician who works in an IV room for ten plus years versus a

> student who decides to become IV Certified by going through a program

> that allows them this title.

>

> Your 20/20 comment is good and does ask the question about the

> validity of the national exam. Yes it is a start but so very much

> more is needed and as you, Dora, Annette, and others believe in

> the need for formal education, the fact remains that this is not going

> to happen soon until the consumer decide to use their numbers in

> demanding more is needed. Since the Pharmacy Technician is doing 95

> percent of prescription and medication orders including IV Admixtures,

> the consumer has the right to demand accountability from the pharmacy

> profession.

>

> We are at odds, but our goals have always been the same.

>

> Joe Medina, CPhT

>

> ----------

> However to plan your/one's whole study around the belief or knowledge

> that only a few trade generics will be on the exam down plays the

> words " certified " and places the public at risk for safety. WE as

> Educators owe the community better than this.

>