Re: Professional Development / CE

[Guest guest]

BRAVO Anne!

Thank you for your honest opinion and information.

I am grateful to your service as the moderator on my TEACHERS site as

well as being a TEXPERT on this site. Every timw you post you show

what it is to be the BEST at what you are. I am so proud to be your

colleague and friend.

I totally agree with you on this topic. Furthermore you said it

very, very well. My only hope it that the continued expression on

this or any topic will follow your advice:

" If one is to play devils advocate - it should be stated, and an

intelligent arguement for both sides should be stated by the

individual, so that they can either appear impartial, or to enforce

their true belief, but show they have an understanding of both

sides - otherwise - right or wrong - it will be considered that

persons " opinion " - which will definately get postive and negative

feedback. We shouldn't be focused on the individual, but on the

topic at hand. "

The above must be applied by all of us on all topics.

THANK YOU

Respectfully,

and with Love

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Pharm Tech Educator

Founder/Owner

>

> I have been away from this board for a few weeks, as I've been very

> busy. I will not specifically comment on any of the previous

> postings regarding CE's, but would like to state my opinion.

>

> As with all professions/para-professions individuals are just that -

> individuals. The knowledge, the intelligence, and the committment

> to professional development will vary from person to person.

>

> Some technicians have little high school learning or have a GED,

but

> that can not dictate their capibilities - did you know that the

> former surgeon general Carmona was a high school " drop

> out " ??? Intelligence does not equal compentency. There is always

the

> person with the lowest grade (or purhaps even the highest grade or

> anything in between)that still qualifies to to practice, but may

not

> have much common sense in the application of what they've learned.

>

> Yes, I am a technician. Yes, I was educated and trained through a

CC

> program that was ASHP accredited - by a pharmacist that taught us

as

> if we were first year pharamcy students - she was tough. Is this

> the " norm " - sometimes yes, sometimes no. Yes, I have a BS degree

> (in Agriculture) but was Pre-Pharm/Pre-Med so I have my sciences

and

> math. I even was accepted as an alternate for Medical School, but I

> chose teaching instead (partly because I'm getting too old to think

> about all that time in the classroom, student loans, and residency -

> if my heart wasn't there - someone else needs to have that

> opportunity - but I WAS accepted). I have recently started my

> Masters in Pharmacology.

>

> So, this leads me to the variety of CE's that are available to me,

> and my choices - which since this is america, I should have. I

> primarily complete Free CE's (NONE of us makes a ton of money, and

> with gas prices as they are - most will save where we can). I do

> some from organizations and magazines, and I do some from PowerPak.

> I always select based on what would be a learing experience, not

> which is the easiest - truthfully - most every one I've looked at

> can be " easy " if you know how to " find answers " - not many have you

> interpret the information to actually answer the questions -

whether

> they are for pharmacists or technicians. It is also unfortunate

that

> many pharmacists " pick the easy ones " for the same reason many

techs

> do - they're easy! Some Pharmacists don't always take " brain time "

> to learn, they are busy, tired, and worn out like the rest of us.

> Do I feel " Tech " CE's are beneath me? No, but some of them ARE

> rediculously, for lack of a better word, FLUFF (luckily only a few)

> (but truthfully, I read or attended some pharmacist CE's that fall

> into the same category). Tech CE's can cover a wide range of

> comprehension capibilites, as do Pharamcist CE's. BUT - to

restrict -

> industry specific, general applications, is not, in my opinion,

> growing the industry (for pharmacist AND technicians). As the

> reporting of medication errors increase, one would think, it would

> be appreciated that technicians capable of completing " higher

level "

> learning, would take the opportunity to do so.

> Are there areas that should be restricted to Pharmacist only, I can

> argue yes, but purhaps they should be further restricted to only

> board certified pharamcists in their specific specialty...

> Technicians are a vital part of the pharmacy team. The better

> educated (from school or even through CE's)the tech, the better the

> team. I've had students on their FIRST day of clincals catch

> potentially life threatening interactions/duplications. Some people

> tell me I'm too hard on my students, that I require too much,

> because it is " beyond our scope " . My philosophy is this - I also

> teach more than what is the minimum requirement, because (hopefully

> while I'm still breathing) there WILL BE a NATIONAL education

> STANDARD, students will have to have a minimum of an AA, and

> complete (and pass) an ACCREDITED programs before they are able to

> sit for a national exam. I don't want my students to find themselve

> obsolete because they were trained with only the " minimum " . [i was

> taught this philosphy through the actions of my Mentor - Ann

> Jordan, RPh - RIP]

> I am in Louisiana. In Jan 2005, the LABP required that all new

techs

> must complete a " LABP board approved program " - you had to submit a

> curriculm and an application - never has the LABP come to see how

> any of the programs operate. Part of the reason for this

requirement

> was to ensure some " educational training " was being given to OJT

> techs, so that there would be an increase in the pass rate for the

> requirement of the PTCE (given by the PTCB). From the 2007 Annual

> report - National Pass Rate in 2006 was 65% (I believe the lowest

> since inception), and LA Pass Rate 55%. I have been teaching in LA

> since 2003 (teaching since 2001) - All of my GRADUATES since 2003

> have a 100% Pass rate (I've even had several students not complete

> the program, but still pass)[My best recollection from all of the

> student's I've taught, that overall, I've had a 98% pass rate, and

> I've had a 100% pass rate by second attempt).

> I'm not taking the time to verify the next statement, but I think I

> remember correctly, LA was one of the first states to required

techs

> to complete ACPE CE's. Many didn't think this was fair. My

question -

> could it help protect the safety of the patient - if the answer is

> even maybe - then it's the right thing.

> I think that eventually, this CE P/T " thing " will work itself to

> a " reasonable " conclusion. I believe (no facts) the reason for this

> designation was to ensure Pharmacists were doing the appropriate

> CE's, not to prevent Techs from advancing their knowledge (which

> unfortunately can be considered a repercussion of

> this " designation " ). Like many " governing " policies, they see a big

> picture and have good intentions, but don't recognize the " fringe "

> elements that suffer from these policies (this is why there are so

> many amendments to the constitution - " oh yea, but didn't mean, or

> we didn't want to include..... " ).

> This site/forum is important to have discussions on topics such as

> these. These topics, especially this one - impacts most of us here

> (not all techs, but I'm pretty sure most techs on this site are

CPhT

> or are preparing to be CPhT).

> I believe there may be arguements (some with merit) to restrict

CE's

> from techs, but we need to be careful - it is the " policy " of this

> great nation to not sweepingly restrict " groups " , if only because

> individuals may suffer an injustice.

> If one is to play devils advocate - it should be stated, and an

> intelligent arguement for both sides should be stated by the

> individual, so that they can either appear impartial, or to enforce

> their true belief, but show they have an understanding of both

> sides - otherwise - right or wrong - it will be considered that

> persons " opinion " - which will definately get postive and negative

> feedback. We shouldn't be focused on the individual, but on the

> topic at hand.

> Thank you for your time - This is my OPINION. (and of course we

know

> what they say about opinions, they're like $##%(* & ! - everybody's

> got one)

> Respectfully,

> Anne LaVance, BS, CPhT

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Anne,

Suffice to say I do agree with you, and maybe need lessons in writing

as eloquently as you do as much I post in this forum seems to be

misunderstood.

I still believe from my many years of experience in Pharmacy, (over 3

decades) and when I go to individual Pharmacy settings, that not all

is it appears in postings on this forum where Technicians are trying

to better themselves in both personal and professional growth.

I see a great deal of apathy and many more Technician's who simply

work for their individual paycheck and nothing more.

Then again, with the majority of Technician's that do not have an

educational background such as you and Jeanetta share, have families

to support with low wages and in some cases, little recognition, I can

see why one would forgo this forums expression in the wonderfulness

our vocation is and simply.... try to make ends meet.

Joe Medina, CPhT

[Guest guest]

Worth  Repeating!

I just love all that my good friend, associate and moderator of my other site

(RxTech Educator's Advisory Group)   has written about  opinions. 

We both know each other so well, and our opinions of what should and should not

be taught in tech courses are one and the same. We both believe in teaching

above and beyond.

We both believe in pushing or raising the bar.

That is WHY she is my moderator on my educator's site.

Thank you Anne for your great service,

Jeanetta Mastron CPhT BS

Pharm Tech Educator

Founder/Owner

From: Anne LaVance <InstructorCPhT@...>

Subject: Professional Development / CE

Date: Wednesday, August 6, 2008, 10:27 AM

I have been away from this board for a few weeks, as I've been very

busy. I will not specifically comment on any of the previous

postings regarding CE's, but would like to state my opinion.

As with all professions/para-professions individuals are just that -

individuals. The knowledge, the intelligence, and the committment

to professional development will vary from person to person.

Some technicians have little high school learning or have a GED, but

that can not dictate their capibilities - did you know that the

former surgeon general Carmona was a high school " drop

out " ??? Intelligence does not equal compentency. There is always the

person with the lowest grade (or purhaps even the highest grade or

anything in between)that still qualifies to to practice, but may not

have much common sense in the application of what they've learned.

Yes, I am a technician. Yes, I was educated and trained through a CC

program that was ASHP accredited - by a pharmacist that taught us as

if we were first year pharamcy students - she was tough. Is this

the " norm " - sometimes yes, sometimes no. Yes, I have a BS degree

(in Agriculture) but was Pre-Pharm/Pre-Med so I have my sciences and

math. I even was accepted as an alternate for Medical School, but I

chose teaching instead (partly because I'm getting too old to think

about all that time in the classroom, student loans, and residency -

if my heart wasn't there - someone else needs to have that

opportunity - but I WAS accepted). I have recently started my

Masters in Pharmacology.

So, this leads me to the variety of CE's that are available to me,

and my choices - which since this is america, I should have. I

primarily complete Free CE's (NONE of us makes a ton of money, and

with gas prices as they are - most will save where we can). I do

some from organizations and magazines, and I do some from PowerPak.

I always select based on what would be a learing experience, not

which is the easiest - truthfully - most every one I've looked at

can be " easy " if you know how to " find answers " - not many

have you

interpret the information to actually answer the questions - whether

they are for pharmacists or technicians. It is also unfortunate that

many pharmacists " pick the easy ones " for the same reason many techs

do - they're easy! Some Pharmacists don't always take " brain

time "

to learn, they are busy, tired, and worn out like the rest of us.

Do I feel " Tech " CE's are beneath me? No, but some of them ARE

rediculously, for lack of a better word, FLUFF (luckily only a few)

(but truthfully, I read or attended some pharmacist CE's that fall

into the same category). Tech CE's can cover a wide range of

comprehension capibilites, as do Pharamcist CE's. BUT - to restrict -

industry specific, general applications, is not, in my opinion,

growing the industry (for pharmacist AND technicians). As the

reporting of medication errors increase, one would think, it would

be appreciated that technicians capable of completing " higher level "

learning, would take the opportunity to do so.

Are there areas that should be restricted to Pharmacist only, I can

argue yes, but purhaps they should be further restricted to only

board certified pharamcists in their specific specialty...

Technicians are a vital part of the pharmacy team. The better

educated (from school or even through CE's)the tech, the better the

team. I've had students on their FIRST day of clincals catch

potentially life threatening interactions/duplications. Some people

tell me I'm too hard on my students, that I require too much,

because it is " beyond our scope " . My philosophy is this - I also

teach more than what is the minimum requirement, because (hopefully

while I'm still breathing) there WILL BE a NATIONAL education

STANDARD, students will have to have a minimum of an AA, and

complete (and pass) an ACCREDITED programs before they are able to

sit for a national exam. I don't want my students to find themselve

obsolete because they were trained with only the " minimum " . [i was

taught this philosphy through the actions of my Mentor - Ann

Jordan, RPh - RIP]

I am in Louisiana. In Jan 2005, the LABP required that all new techs

must complete a " LABP board approved program " - you had to submit a

curriculm and an application - never has the LABP come to see how

any of the programs operate. Part of the reason for this requirement

was to ensure some " educational training " was being given to OJT

techs, so that there would be an increase in the pass rate for the

requirement of the PTCE (given by the PTCB). From the 2007 Annual

report - National Pass Rate in 2006 was 65% (I believe the lowest

since inception), and LA Pass Rate 55%. I have been teaching in LA

since 2003 (teaching since 2001) - All of my GRADUATES since 2003

have a 100% Pass rate (I've even had several students not complete

the program, but still pass)[My best recollection from all of the

student's I've taught, that overall, I've had a 98% pass rate, and

I've had a 100% pass rate by second attempt).

I'm not taking the time to verify the next statement, but I think I

remember correctly, LA was one of the first states to required techs

to complete ACPE CE's. Many didn't think this was fair. My question -

could it help protect the safety of the patient - if the answer is

even maybe - then it's the right thing.

I think that eventually, this CE P/T " thing " will work itself to

a " reasonable " conclusion. I believe (no facts) the reason for this

designation was to ensure Pharmacists were doing the appropriate

CE's, not to prevent Techs from advancing their knowledge (which

unfortunately can be considered a repercussion of

this " designation " ). Like many " governing " policies, they

see a big

picture and have good intentions, but don't recognize the

" fringe "

elements that suffer from these policies (this is why there are so

many amendments to the constitution - " oh yea, but didn't mean, or

we didn't want to include..... " ).

This site/forum is important to have discussions on topics such as

these. These topics, especially this one - impacts most of us here

(not all techs, but I'm pretty sure most techs on this site are CPhT

or are preparing to be CPhT).

I believe there may be arguements (some with merit) to restrict CE's

from techs, but we need to be careful - it is the " policy " of this

great nation to not sweepingly restrict " groups " , if only because

individuals may suffer an injustice.

If one is to play devils advocate - it should be stated, and an

intelligent arguement for both sides should be stated by the

individual, so that they can either appear impartial, or to enforce

their true belief, but show they have an understanding of both

sides - otherwise - right or wrong - it will be considered that

persons " opinion " - which will definately get postive and negative

feedback. We shouldn't be focused on the individual, but on the

topic at hand.

Thank you for your time - This is my OPINION. (and of course we know

what they say about opinions, they're like $##%(* & ! - everybody's

got one)

Respectfully,

Anne LaVance, BS, CPhT

------------------------------------