Pharm Tech Residency 2020

[Sofa]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Starting 2020, techs will have to do a "residency" before they can be PTCB certified.

https://www.ptcb.org/about-ptcb/new.../ptcb-announces-certification-program-changes

By 2020, PTCB will require candidates for initial PTCB certification to successfully complete an American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP)-accredited education program. ASHP-accredited programs include didactic course work and practical experience, thereby providing well-rounded training for technicians.

This whole residency thing in the pharmacy world is getting a bit out of control, and I'm not even in the anti-residency crowd.

Although I agree this is inherently beneficial to help with pharmacy operations, I don't think it is fair to charge thousands of dollars and ~6 months of time to someone who wants to enter the pharmacy world. Especially when tasks such as cashiering, insurance billing, counting, med delivery, Pyxis loading, etc. can and have been taught on the job.

I know this is probably old news for some, but still brought this up to see what everyone else's thoughts would be like. Makes for an interesting discussion considering we will be supervising technicians.

 

[Digsbe]

Haha, no one is going to do a "residency" in order to try and obtain a minimum wage job. Unless it becomes common to pay techs better I think this is just going to deter them from the field.

 

[Sofa]

Ya, I feel this is not a good move. It also presents another barrier to prepharm/pharm students looking to get rx experience. Now they need to pay double tuition.

 

[gwarm01]

Que pharmacy techs thinking they know more than pharmacists and demanding equal practice rights in 5, 4, 3...

The biggest joke of all is that I was adequately trained as a pharmacy tech after a couple of weeks on the job. There isn't that much to it. In fact, some of the worst techs I've ever had were straight out of pharmacy tech school. It just fills their heads with a lot of strange ideas, then they come to work thinking they know everything and are more difficult to train.

edit: That link doesn't mention the word residency a single time and is from 2013. Do you have anything more recent that actually uses that term? There's a lot of weight attached to it and it implies a lot more than just changing training requirements.

 

[Sofa]

Here is a more recent article PTCB published. It pretty much says the same thing, but was published in 2015, rather than 2013.
http://www.ptcb.org/about-ptcb/news...our-ce-requirements-what-will-change-in-2016-.

edit: That link doesn't mention the word residency a single time and is from 2013. Do you have anything more recent that actually uses that term? There's a lot of weight attached to it and it implies a lot more than just changing training requirements.

And lol, I said the word "residency" on purpose. It was meant to be light humor at the fact that techs now have to go through extended training to get certified, parallel to some clinical pharmacist positions requiring a residency (extended training) to get a job.

 

[Nguyen]

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[UofK]

Thought it was hard enough finding high quality techs? 2020 and beyond, there will be no such thing as nobody in their right mind will go through with this shi*.

ASHP is creating the most difficult path to obtaining an $11/hr job. That group needs to get their heads out of their collective asses.

 

[SmallCapPharma]

$11? Maybe in Cali. Everywhere else it's $8.75 (CVS at least)

 

[owlegrad]

$11? Maybe in Cali. Everywhere else it's $8.75 (CVS at least)

I used to hire techs at $10 without a problem.

 

[RPh Who]

Some tech programs have an extern component, but definitely no residency in the future for techs. What would a "residency" consist of? Learning to count by 10 instead of 5?

 

[Michael_Scott]

Haha, no one is going to do a "residency" in order to try and obtain a minimum wage job. Unless it becomes common to pay techs better I think this is just going to deter them from the field.

where this is headed, I see increase in wages...this is an obvious attempt to make the job come out the min wage category into an actual allied health job...we'll see how that goes...
this is the exact problem with education, people without common sense running the system....what good is a "residency" going to do for a pharm tech and their productivity, it is basically a clerical job.. UNLESS they start increasing pharm tech duties...

 

[RPh Who]

The primary problem here is that most states require tasks involving judgement to be done by a pharmacist, and in some states an intern. Any additional training to this end without changing administrative law is pointless

 

[gwarm01]

Any additional training to this end without changing administrative law is pointless

I'm suddenly overcome with an overwhelming sense of irony.

 

[Sofa]

I'm suddenly overcome with an overwhelming sense of irony.

And that is the main problem I am having with this "extra training" that ASHP is mandating. No matter how amazingly well educated/trained a tech is, the limiting step in this whole reaction is the pharmacist.

The extra tech training doesn't allow the tech to make any newer administrative decisions, so it ends up being an unnecessary cost burden for a tech-to-be.

 

[gwarm01]

And that is the main problem I am having with this "extra training" that ASHP is mandating. No matter how amazingly well educated/trained a tech is, the limiting step in this whole reaction is the pharmacist.

The extra tech training doesn't allow the tech to make any newer administrative decisions, so it ends up being an unnecessary cost burden for a tech-to-be.

Let's think about pharmacist training over the past two decades or so. Mandatory PharmD for the new and emerging clinical positions. Then the PGY1 for new and emerging clinical positions. Then the PGY2 for the new and emerging clinical specialist positions. The entire idea of specialized training for jobs that don't exist is such a joke. It turns into new, specialized training for existing jobs. A higher barrier of entry for the exact same positions. Then you get these PGY2 admin people working as director of pharmacy, and suddenly PGY1 is the minimum for a staffing position. I'm not saying a PGY1 can't staff, but now you are required an necessary training element for a job which gives a new candidate skills that aren't directly attributable to their job. Now you have someone who can't staff so well and who is constantly looking to leave for a clinical position. This is anecdotal, but I have worked with so many new pharmacists who were subpar at processing orders and managing staff, who were constantly looking for a pure clinical job. We really are just training people for jobs they can't find, then placing them in jobs they don't want.

 

[Sofa]

Let's think about pharmacist training over the past two decades or so. Mandatory PharmD for the new and emerging clinical positions. Then the PGY1 for new and emerging clinical positions. Then the PGY2 for the new and emerging clinical specialist positions. The entire idea of specialized training for jobs that don't exist is such a joke. It turns into new, specialized training for existing jobs. A higher barrier of entry for the exact same positions. Then you get these PGY2 admin people working as director of pharmacy, and suddenly PGY1 is the minimum for a staffing position. I'm not saying a PGY1 can't staff, but now you are required an necessary training element for a job which gives a new candidate skills that aren't directly attributable to their job. Now you have someone who can't staff so well and who is constantly looking to leave for a clinical position. This is anecdotal, but I have worked with so many new pharmacists who were subpar at processing orders and managing staff, who were constantly looking for a pure clinical job. We really are just training people for jobs they can't find, then placing them in jobs they don't want.

Unfortunately, the powers at be seem to think this is the right way to go. I personally dont agree with it.

Are you in favor of this PTCB 2020 movement though? I can't really tell.

 

[gwarm01]

Unfortunately, the powers at be seem to think this is the right way to go. I personally dont agree with it.

Are you in favor of this PTCB 2020 movement though? I can't really tell.

No, I think it's completely unnecessary. I was a tech in 2008 and didn't have to be certified or take any classes. I got all of my training on the job and it didn't take long to get to to speed. It's a very simple job that you just need to do very well.

Anecdotally speaking, I've had more trouble with techs that graduated from training programs than those we just trained ourselves.

 

[Lexington2012]

There are two national accrediting bodies for techs. The ICPT and the PTCB. In some states you don't even need to pass these tests to become a tech. This really isn't a barrier to entry in most places.