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.

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.

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...

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...

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

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.

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

Colorado state pharmacy board doesn't register pharmacy technicians?

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??

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Certification not near as important as licensure

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