Pharmacy Technicians

Should all pharmacy technicians be certified?

Advertisement

There is no question that today's pharmacy technician is doing more in retail and health-systems pharmacies than ever before, yet there are still many technicians that are not certified. Do you think every state should mandate certification?

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (4 votes)

Comments

jevisger's picturePharmacy TechnicianjevisgerJoined: Jul, 2009
Location: Muskegon, MI
Posts: 35

I believe that all Pharmacy

I believe that all Pharmacy Technicians should be certified. I believe that they should all at least take the National Certification Examination put forth by the Pharmacy Technician Certification Board. I also believe that they should be required to take a minimum 2 year Nationally Accredited Program in Pharmacy Technician Studies, as well as Anatomy & Physiology I&II, as well as Medical Terminology, and Pharmacy classes. I've seen too many retail pharmacies having teenagers (some as young as 16 years) that are not certified and they are working as Techs in the Pharmacy. They might know Brand and Generic names, but I think they really do not KNOW how the vast majority of medications work or what they are used to treat. So, I say "YES," to requiring all Pharmacy Technicians to be Nationally Certified. And they should STUDY and STUDY HARD for the examination. The more they know, the better they can understand.

ten9's picturePharmacy Technicianten9Joined: Apr, 2010
Location: Garland, TX
Posts: 1

it is a misconception

it is a misconception propogated by the PTCB that you must be certified. in some hardcore states like texas you must be, but only an hour away from where i live in LA you do not. it's good on a resume, but in states that do not require it experience goes much further than a cert.

grisbyenterprise's picturePharmacy TechniciangrisbyenterpriseJoined: Jul, 2011
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 2

I agree with you 1000%. When

I agree with you 1000%. When I first started training as a pharmacy technician, there was pharmacy tech certification. I attended a junior college and EARNED a technical diploma in this field. Towards the end of my pharmacy technician training the certification was beginning to get talked about. I remember many of my instructors telling me that my formal education would outweigh any one and done certification. I mean I went to class, took exams, got hands on training in the IV room. It was hard work.

Now a certification exam comes along where a person can walk off the street and never even seen the inside of a pharmacy. They can go to their local library and pickup a study guide. Cram about a good month for the exam, pass it, and now be called a Certified Pharmacy Technician. Don't get me wrong I think its an excellent idea, but it should be done in a more structured way. I agree with you, passing a test does not make you a wonderful technician. It only says that you can memorize and pass a test. What about all the technicians that have put in years of hard work, dedication, and on the job training (and formal training) that have been denied promotions because they are not certified.

I think experience should be viewed as important just as much or more than being certified.

ellenschaefer's picturePharmacy TechnicianellenschaeferJoined: Apr, 2012
Location: Medway , MA
Posts: 1

There is no doubt in my mind

There is no doubt in my mind that pharmacy technicians should be nationally certified. There has to be a benchmark of establishing one's qualification for a job as important as this one. Often times a seasoned tech doesn't want to invest in the test out of apprehension or because a tech feels they are in a secure position of knowledge in their own workplace. That could not be further from the truth. I presently write for a web site for pharmacy techs and am including a recent link to an article written about test taking. Check out the entire site--it gives quite a bit of the big picture. The link is as follows---http://www.pharmqd.com/comment/reply/59476/474 I can't encourage this enough.

amawilliams's picturePharmacy TechnicianamawilliamsJoined: Oct, 2013
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1

I highly disagree. I am a

I highly disagree. I am a NCPT and I say that taking the PTCE is very, very rewarding. However, I do not believe that taking a 2 year Nationally Accredited Program, Anatomy courses, a med term course, or any sort of pharmacy class should be required. As a NCPT, you are required to know short hand abbreviations, and how to convert some masses/volumes. However, it is not necessary to know what each thing is used for, how it effects the body, etc., etc. That, is the job of the Pharmacist.

KMiller's picturePharmacy TechnicianKMillerJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 152

I agree that all tech should

I agree that all tech should be certified. I feel there should be a seperation between Retail, Compounding and Sterile Techs as they use completely differnt skill sets. I also belive that State Boards of Pharmacy should license all techs. The disparagement between states is vast. In most states there is no punitave recourse for techs.

SunMoonStars's picturePharmacy TechnicianSunMoonStarsJoined: Jul, 2009
Location: Bethlehem, PA
Posts: 1

I think all techs should be

I think all techs should be nationally certified. I know the scenario of the 16 year old pharmacy tech making making my job look way too easy and not as important as it really is. As a nationally certified tech, I also believe I should be able to make a better living doing what I love. I guess you can't win em all...

tmac67's picturePharmacy Techniciantmac67Joined: Jul, 2009
Location: Lansdowne, PA
Posts: 16

Yes, it's essential that all

Yes, it's essential that all techs be certified because techs play a big role in patient's care as far as retail pharmacies,hospital settings and Home Infusion etc...

ellen dayton's picturePharmacy Technicianellen daytonJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: san luis obispo, CA
Posts: 3

disagree i am certified but

disagree i am certified but certification does not necessarily make a good tech.

KMiller's picturePharmacy TechnicianKMillerJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 152

I am not sure that "making a

I am not sure that "making a good tech" is the goal to requiring Certification. It is a matter of responsibility. The state I live in has no requirements on techs and therefore has no recourse when a tech is found to have diverted medication or made a miscalculation etc.. the pharmacist is the only person the Board can punish. I think if our profession is to be taken seriously we should be responsible and accountable for our actions.

SyrichRX's picturePharmacy TechnicianSyrichRXJoined: Feb, 2010
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 20

The Board can only punish the

The Board can only punish the pharmacist because the pharmacist is the one in charge. He or she is quality assurance. Techs are not. Look at http://bit.ly/aVxZH9.

KMiller's picturePharmacy TechnicianKMillerJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 152

And because of this case

And because of this case Emily's Law requires the registration of Technicians. The reason for the change? So the Tech could have born some of the blame for this mistake. I work in a compounding pharmacy in a state that does not regualte techs. Even if a root cause analysis proves a tech made an error that the pharmacists can not validate in Colorado the RPH is the one charged or the PIC who was off that day is charged and punished. All techs should be registered with the state so when errors occur we accept the blame with the RPH. It is the olny way we are going to be taken seriously as a profession.

edsonrph's picturePharmacistedsonrphJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: clackamas, OR
Posts: 968

Well said.

Well said.

Anonymous's pictureJoined: Dec, 1969
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 133

Certification doesn't help

Certification doesn't help too much if one still has to be taught how to do parts of the job many years later! ARGH!!!!!!!!!!

KMiller's picturePharmacy TechnicianKMillerJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 152

Certification only proves

Certification only proves that at the time of the certification test the person taking the test had the required knowledge to pass. Continued certification proves that the person is capable of compiling the required CE credits in the allowed time. As I stated in an earlier post there needs to be a narrowed definition or subspecialization of certification.
I work in a compounding pharmacy. We fill a maximun of 3% of our prescriptions as commercial mostly thyroid. If I were to work PRN at a retail chain I would need to be taught portions of the job. Those portions I don't do at all; insurance adjudication, working a drive thru, generic equivalents and anything else I don't do.
Didactic testing of skills should be ongoing. If I were an EMT I would have to recertify every two years with a didactic demonstartion of my skills. CPhT's should have to prove thier skill to recert.

Anonymous's pictureJoined: Dec, 1969
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 133

Colorado state pharmacy board

Colorado state pharmacy board doesn't register pharmacy technicians?

Anonymous's pictureJoined: Dec, 1969
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 133

Maybe someone should push the

Maybe someone should push the idea to make it a mandatory requirement that all Pharmacy Techs in CO be registered with the state via the CO state pharmacy board??

KMiller's picturePharmacy TechnicianKMillerJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 152

Colorado has a Technician

Colorado has a Technician Taskforce that has been lost in minutia for the last 2 years with no real clear direction. There are quite a few states that do not regulate techs.

Anonymous's pictureJoined: Dec, 1969
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 133

Remember now some pharmacies

Remember now some pharmacies offer pay raises if you become nationally certified by PTCB. Offering pay raises would be an incentive to bettering oneself and becoming a valued team member.

ellen dayton's picturePharmacy Technicianellen daytonJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: san luis obispo, CA
Posts: 3

licensing is a far better way

licensing is a far better way to control accountability and responsibility. the certification is an excellent way to further education, knowledge and personal credability. it is also transportable nationally. the state boards of pharmacy are technically the quality control police at baseline. certification says i want to be better than that and worth more to my company.

Anonymous's pictureJoined: Dec, 1969
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 133

Yes, you are correct, Ellen

Yes, you are correct, Ellen but some companies don't see it the way you stated it as: "certification says I want to be better than that and worth more to my company" per your quote. Some companies don't recognize pharmacy technicians by giving them a pay raise for becoming nationally certified after all the hard work they had to go thru to become nationally certified. My company chose to give the techs just a bonus money instead of a raise and I thought that was very unfair.

deewtk's picturePharmacy TechniciandeewtkJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Raritan, NJ
Posts: 4

Yes all pharmacy tech should

Yes all pharmacy techs should be certifed ! Almost all the hospitals in New Jersey want you to be certified and now we have to be registered thru the Board of Pharmacy to work in a hospital.

Anonymous's pictureJoined: Dec, 1969
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 133

New Jersey sounds like it's

New Jersey sounds like it's going to be the way we have it in Texas. We techs are nationally certified and also have to be registered thru the texas state pharmacy board as well. CE for the state are, if you keep up with your national certification then the state will accept your CE that you did for PTCB. sorry, i'm a little off here :( Texas made it mandatory to be registered thru the state pharmacy board.

tking's picturePharmacy TechniciantkingJoined: Jul, 2009
Location: Hickory, NC
Posts: 6

In my humble opinon, I

In my humble opinon, I believe that all "True" techs should be Certified. I work in a Compounding Pharmacy and we have someone that does a lot of labeling and making capsules. Again, here in my humble opinion, I don't think this person needs to be certified. Everything that this person does is prepared by a Certified Technician. Their job is just to label, tape and package the preparations. As for the capsules, the powder preps are put together by the Certified Tech as well.

So, in the majority of cases, yes, I feel like techs should be Certified with the "exception to the rule" as described above.

In NC we are required to be registered with the NC Board of Pharmacy and of course have our 20 hours of CE to recertify with the PTCB every two years.

supervillainx0's picturePharmacy Techniciansupervillainx0Joined: Aug, 2009
Location: Middletown, DE
Posts: 15

All techs should be certified

All techs should be certified because it's good to present to a potential employer. Also, each state has different regulations pertaining to techs. Therefore, it's good to have that certification in case you transfer to a state requiring it for techs.

btdouglas's picturePharmacy TechnicianbtdouglasJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Kingsland, GA
Posts: 13

In my opinion, all pharmacy

In my opinion, all pharmacy techs should be certified. Once techs have been certified, it shows they have the basic knowledge needed to work in the field. Unlike some states, Georgia included, a 16 year old can be hired and called a tech without even a high school diploma yet or any formal training. This is not only more stressful for the supervising pharmacist and potentially more dangerous for the patient, but it also prevents job openings from being available to those of us who are certified.

KMiller's picturePharmacy TechnicianKMillerJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 152

I agree with you.

I agree with you. Certification should be the first step to working in a pharmacy setting. At this time, it is the pinnacle of our profession. I do not agree with this. I am a certified tech. I work daily in a solely componding pharmacy. I could take my certification and go work in a retail setting with commercial drugs and be lost. Our profession needs other nationally recognized certifications. We also need stronger oversight in all states. The certification process is at question for me. There are multiple ways to become certified. You could walk in off the street take the test and if you pass you are a tech. If you complete the required CE every two years you stay certified. This says nothing as to if you are qualified or competent to be a pharmacy tech.

btdouglas's picturePharmacy TechnicianbtdouglasJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Kingsland, GA
Posts: 13

I understand what you are

I understand what you are saying. The state of Georgia is considering a state wide registry and requiring all techs to be certified. The state is currently working on the details and how and if the techs will be graded. These steps will eventually require all techs to carry liability insurance. I work in a retail pharmacy, we also do repackaging and compounding. There are two of us that are well rounded, but I am the only tech that is certified. Most certified techs will strive to uphold a higher standard, if they have any ethics.

KMiller's picturePharmacy TechnicianKMillerJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 152

Thank you and I agree. I work

Thank you and I agree. I work in a LARGE compounding pharmacy. We have 8 pharmacists, 22 techs of those less than 7 are uncertified. 1 of the uncertified is a technician supervisor. This fact leads to a lot of discussion and ire. As a company we have put in place a requirement that all techs will be certified prior to 01-01-10. Even though it is not a requirement in our state. Having all techs certified creates a community of professionals and makes gaining certain certifications for the company easier such as PCAB.

Gabej777's picturePharmacy TechnicianGabej777Joined: Aug, 2009
Location: Glendale, CA
Posts: 6

I agree but, when I spoke up

I agree but, when I spoke up about my certification I was told by our senior pharmacist "that doesn't matter here". None the less I have worked at the same place for close to 3 years doing my CE's in hopes that someday it will mean something.

krtech's picturePharmacy TechniciankrtechJoined: Jul, 2009
Location: Pinson, AL
Posts: 5

In Alabama we have to be

In Alabama we have to be licensed by the state and state law requires that for every 3 technicians working in pharmacy, one must be nationally certified. I pursued national certification on my own intiative, and it is did result in a pay increase. I am very glad I did, because it showed my employer that I was serious about my career and it was not merely a paycheck. I think it should be mandatory. To be licensed by the state all you have to do is have a clean criminal record, pay $60 every 2 years, maintain 3 hours of CE (1 of which must be live, and you only have to provide proof of it if audited), and be atleast 18 years of age. I don't know that I would want just any 18 year old working behind the pharmacy counter, it is so much more that counting. I think there should be atleast some sort of state level test or one day course...it should be little more difficult to attain your license, because it is not something that should be taken lightly. Sure, everything we do has to be checked by a pharmacist, but if we have this attitude and don't realize that we hold people's lives and health in our hands, what if the pharmacist has an off day and doesn't catch our slip up? Then who suffers? I just think there should be higher standard and that is where state licensing (with some testing and restrictions) and mandatory national certification come into play.

betsyzepeda's picturePharmacy TechnicianbetsyzepedaJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: fort wayne, IN
Posts: 1

You only have to do 3 hours

You only have to do 3 hours of CE every 2 years? In Indiana we have to do 20 hours every 2 years. It would be nice if the regulations were the same countrywide.

Donna9668's picturePharmacy TechnicianDonna9668Joined: Jul, 2009
Location: Loveland, OH
Posts: 59

I'm torn on the subject.

I'm torn on the subject. Working in a retail pharmacy, our employer teaches us (in a formal training program -- one that must be completed in a certain time frame, or you're let go) all that we need to know.

We don't compound, we don't mix IV's. I recently took and passed the PTCB with flying colors (go me! LOL) but I still would not trust myself or consider myself competent enough in compounding and IV procedures.

In Ohio, a law passed called "Emily's Law"...a certified technician mixed an IV wrong, the pharmacist didn't catch it and the little girl died. Now, all pharmacy techs are required to be certifed UNLESS the state has approved your employers individual training program.

Many of us didn't wait...not wanting to risk that our company would be turned down. Of course the certification came with a raise (which always helps in this economy) and I won't deny I did learn things that will help me in my position. But as a whole, for the RETAIL field, the test was a bit of overkill.

lookilooloo's picturePharmacy TechnicianlookiloolooJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Panama City, FL
Posts: 1

The state of Florida is

The state of Florida is working on getting all Pharmacy Tech's Nationaly certified. By January 2010 all techs must be registered by the state and by January 2011 they must be nationally certified. They are not making us take the test for state registration, as long as we have a certain number of hours worked or completion in a training program. I do not know yet what will happen as far as national certification, but I would be surprised if we don't have to take the test. :)

KMiller's picturePharmacy TechnicianKMillerJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 152

The reason for certifiication

The reason for certifiication is to determine profiecient competence. The real reason for State Boards of Pharmacy to register/ license is punative. In a state where there is no registration/ lisensure if a mistake is make by the tech and the pharmacust misses it that ERROR leaves the pharmacy with all the responsibility and fines falling on the pharmacist, the pharmacist in charge and the location's license. If the same situation occurs in a state where the technician is licensed the responsibility and fine is ditributed to the tech, the checking pharmacist, the PIC and the location. In states that license techs the results are that the Board seems to feel that techs are disposabile. If charges are brought against a tech a majority of the time a fee is assessed and revocation happens. Where as pharmacists are fined and there are some probationry limits set. This disparity seems unfair. We need regulation in all states and a uniformity in fines and penalties across our profession.

ojiellen's picturePharmacy TechnicianojiellenJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: SAN FRANCISCO, CA
Posts: 1

I think yah. All pharmacy

I think yah. All pharmacy technicians suppose to be certified so when your typing the Rx you understand the direction if right or wrong you can ask the pharmacist right away if you think suspicious. specially control med.

deewtk's picturePharmacy TechniciandeewtkJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Raritan, NJ
Posts: 4

In the hospital I worked at

In the hospital I worked at at the time I was cretified, when you passed the test you got $1.00 more an hour. For what we do in the hospial and have to know I think we should be making more money.

KMiller's picturePharmacy TechnicianKMillerJoined: Aug, 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 152

For what you do there should

For what you do there should be a next step certification and registration with your state. If this were true there would also be compensation for our skill set.

erosellomarrero's picturePharmacy TechnicianerosellomarreroJoined: Oct, 2009
Location: miami, FL
Posts: 1

YES I DO, THAT MAY INCREASE

YES I DO, THAT MAY INCREASE OUR INCOME AND PHARMACIST RECOGNITION

MatthewRn's picturePharmacy TechnicianMatthewRnJoined: Nov, 2009
Location: Woodlawn, KY
Posts: 1

I fully support that Pharmacy

I fully support that Pharmacy Techs should be state licensed and PTCB Certified. As stated before all the credentialing in work does not make a well trained and capable tech. I have a real problem with pharmacists (especially) new grads who look down on Techs. I love one pharmacist who always says she didn't go to pharmacy school to answer phones or ring the register. I asked flat out why she did go to pharmacy school and why is she working in retail? Technicians are EXTREMELY underpaid. We are usually the ones taking verbal beatings from customers about insurance copays, we usually are the ones filling and typing, some of us do extensive inventory work and then of course there are the phone calls. The list goes on. You can not possible suggest that an RX Tech get any sort college degree unless there is going to be a HUGE pay increase. There simply is no incentive in the current and very broken system currently in place for a tech to do that and make a real career out of it. What we do versus what we get paid is huge issue of mine, I really do enjoy being a technician and I work with great pharmacists and most of the time really enjoy interacting with patients. On the flip side there are time when I feel like I am babysitting the Pharmacist because they are totally incompetent. When I say babysitting, I mean catching errors THEY have made, catching interactions that are serious that THEY missed because they were chatting away on their cell phones and not paying attention to the big red interaction flag that popped up. Pharmacists also need to keep in mind that if you treat your staff in a condescending manner, I promise you a good technician will not result and turnover will be high. I love the Pharmacists I work with and I do try and do as much as I can so they can counsel, perform MTM's etc I do not want to be a pharmacist (its just not for me as a lifetime career), I am attending nursing school and intend on .going back for my Doctor of Nursing Practice to be a nurse practitioner. The subject of pharmacology has always been something I've found to be incredibly interesting...I've got the latest Goodman and Gilman's as well as Dipiro's Pharmacotherapy.
As for errors, I don't care whether it's retail or hospital...pharmacist's know your staff and know their capabilities. Delegating is great but don't hand a complicated task to a poorly trained tech, you are asking for trouble. I compound all the time, HOWEVER after I work out the math, I get the RPH AND another tech to check it before I even begin to make the compound it. If it's something I think is out of my league I find a capable tech or the pharmacist and ask them to do it. Being swamped is a part of the job however safety is priority and in my opinion it is the pharmacist's responsibility when an error results. i don't care to make a patient wait if it means that I'm working a safe pace...it's for their good.

TheRedheadedPharmacist's picturePharmacistTheRedheadedPharmacistJoined: Jan, 2010
Location: city,
Posts: 26

I think at least in my state

I think at least in my state that technician certification serves more of a purpose for the state board of pharmacy to keep tabs on anyone working in the pharmacy. It allows the board to require that you are registered with them and they know who is working where. I think it also makes some customers feel more comfortable knowing that the technicians working at a store are certified.

I don't think that it is a bad thing to require certification and I do realize that it doesn't guarantee that someone will be a good technician but it helps increase the odds in your favor. I also have always been bothered by employers requiring technicians to be certified but not offering addition compensation for that certification. There is no reason why technicians shouldn't get paid more if they are certified. You can't require an employee to have additional credentials/training and not pay them for it. So for me as a retail pharmacist I don't have any problem with the technician certification requirement rule as long as the technician is recognized for their accomplishment and is paid more for it.

PharmChic's picturePharmacistPharmChicJoined: Jan, 2010
Location: Mayer, AZ
Posts: 5

Certification not near as

Certification not near as important as licensure

divamom's picturePharmacy TechniciandivamomJoined: Jan, 2010
Location: BOLINGBROOK, IL
Posts: 2

ptcb exam study guide at

ptcb exam study guide at www.pharmrx.yolasite.com

cvsbest's picturePharmacy TechniciancvsbestJoined: Mar, 2010
Location: Owensboro, KY
Posts: 1

yes, because not only does it

yes, because not only does it allow you to have more input and taken more serious, but for me it boost my confidence, and I believe when you do have those initials behind you name CPHT, you get more respect from pharmacists and your co-workers.

mthomas1's picturePharmacy Technicianmthomas1Joined: Apr, 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 3

Even though it's not

Even though it's not mandatory to be certified in PA, I believe that all pharm techs should be certified. Currently the PBM I work for states that it is mandatory that all techs be certified in every aspect of pharmacy from the call center, prior authorization, MTM services, LTC, injectables, etc. and we don't physically handle medications. So it's a little scary to know that some states think so little of our title and roles in the pharmacy setting that they will not instill stronger regulations when it comes to handling medications by any Tom, Dick or Susie walking in off the street.

tleebink's picturePharmacy TechniciantleebinkJoined: Aug, 2010
Location: Cody, WY
Posts: 2

I am kinda of torn on this

I am kinda of torn on this subject because there is a huge difference between a certified tech and an experienced certified tech. Just about anyone can cram for an exam and pass it. I feel that instead of focusing so much on the piece of paper hangin on the wall, we should focus on the skills of a technician. I can think of two tech that a worked with a few years back that both got around the same score on the PTCB exam but one constantly made mistakes and the other didn't make hardly any. This has nothing to do with the certification...only the ability to make sense of the wierd world of pharmacy. Although it looks really good to have that license on a resume, it looks better to have a great recommendation from the pharmacist. Certification is great but we as techs should focus more on being a great tech then the peice of paper on the wall.

Pharmacy TechnicianGerylann StephensJoined: Jul, 2010
Location: Lake Worth , FL
Posts: 7

I totally agree. My

I totally agree. My experience is some of my best technicians when I was a supervisor in a hospital setting were the ones who were Certified. I think that this should be a requirement with schooling as well. We have TOO many technicians that treat their jobs like we are in fast food. Quite frankly, they just don't care, and don't want to learn, their all about the paycheck. I went to school and got certified. It made me a well rounded technician. I am very passionate about my patients well being. That's why I get so upset when I see some technicians the way they are. Now, on the other hand if we do have people get Certified and go to school, Technicians need to be paid more. Because God knows we are VERY underpaid. As a Technician I enjoy going to conventions, having gone to school, learning as much as I can to better help our patients... I love what I do. I just would like these changes. I am tired of Technicians who don't even know their drugs and have the "I Don't Care Attitude"...something needs to be done..

5
johnrx's picturePharmacistjohnrxJoined: Jan, 2011
Location: san fernando, CA
Posts: 1

Certification of techs should

Certification of techs should be mandatory. We're not flipping burgers here, we all have a responsibility to provide quality care. Some techs don't see that, its just a job to them. I don't know if cert. will weed out those that do not have the right attitude for the job but its a step in the right direction.

david pharmacy tech's picturePharmacy Techniciandavid pharmacy techJoined: Apr, 2011
Location: eastbourne,
Posts: 1

In the UK we have always had

In the UK we have always had a specific course to allow you to practice and a pharmacy technician, but now we are all being registered to allow use to practice. If you are remove from the register you cannot practice as a technician. This model is also in Australia. The main difference i think, is the extended roles in the Uk are greater than in other countries and pay is higher also as a comparison, although it is very hard to know the pay as it is not as transparent in the US or Aus. Happy techning guys....

grisbyenterprise's picturePharmacy TechniciangrisbyenterpriseJoined: Jul, 2011
Location: milwaukee, WI
Posts: 2

I have been practicing for

I have been practicing for many years now. I am currently now certified. I do hold a technical diploma as a pharmacy technician. I attended a junior college and had actual training. My courses included topics such as drug classification, pharmacy law, medical terminology, IV admixture compounding, and many other courses.

To answer the question I think it should be up to the individual if they want to become certified. Many states are making it mandatory to become certified as well as many jobs are preferring technicians to become certified as well. The problem I have with certification is that anyone can go pick up a book at your local library study probably for a good month take the test and pass. Now they are officially a certified pharmacy technician.

Wow talk about easy street. If you are going to make a certification mandatory, make it so that you go through some training first and then the exam is the final step in becoming certified.

1 of 2