Investigation of the Potential Effects of Registration Requirements on Florida Pharmacy Technician Credentials

Abstract

Background: On June 23, 2008, Florida adopted regulations mandating credentialing requirements for pharmacy technicians. Objective: To investigate the Pharmacy Technician Certification Board (PTCB) certified pharmacy technician self-report and pharmacist report of work experience, education, training, and non-PTCB certification credentials of Florida community pharmacy technicians prior to the adoption of registration requirements in that state and to predict the effects of the requirements on Florida pharmacy technicians. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 2000 Florida pharmacists and 2000 Florida PTCB Certified Pharmacy Technicians (CPhTs) in 2004. Results: Of the 1230 returned questionnaires, 571 (46%) were from pharmacists and 659 (54%) were from technicians. Most of the pharmacists in the sample reported that they had supervised a CPhT, while few had supervised a technician with an AA in Pharmacy Technician Sciences. Most of the technicians sampled reported having some higher education. Less than half reported having formal technician training. Few reported having non-PTCB pharmacy technician certificates. Conclusions: Florida pharmacy technicians had some higher education or technician training credentialing, despite its not being mandatory. Pharmacists may not always be aware of the education and credentials of the technicians they supervise. The new registration requirements will most likely have little effect on existing Florida pharmacy technicians who register before January 1, 2011. Those who are CPhTs will have to complete types of continuing education that are different from those that they were required to complete for certification. Those who are not CPhTs will have to complete continuing education programs.

Restructuring supervision and reconfiguration of skill mix in community pharmacy: Classification of perceived safety and risk

“…The largest difference in opinion was between community pharmacists and community PTs, where PTs were more likely to view activities as appropriate for them to perform. 33 Differences between hospital and community PTs were also found and may be explained by the level of familiarity those in different sectors have with individual activities. Community pharmacist and hospital pharmacists' perceptions of safety appeared to be aligned for these activities.…”

“…Such substitution is likely to be perceived as both a risk and a threat to the pharmacist profession and to patient safety, 26 with activities requiring clinical knowledge remaining reserved for pharmacists. 23,28 Therefore, it is unlikely that activities, such as clinical checks, providing clinical advice to patients (regardless of whether this is with regards to prescription or OTC (P) sales or POMs, providing minor ailment services, MURs or NMS), should be performed by support staff in a pharmacist's absence. For the dispensing process shown in Figure 4 this means that a clinical check by a pharmacist would have to have been incorporated (for non-repeat prescriptions) at some point during the dispensing process (before the pharmacist leaves the premises), or through utilisation of remote technology.…”

“…By identifying this variation, potential risks associated with any future changes in supervision could be reduced and acceptability of broadening the scope of practice of support staff could be increased. Whilst previous, mostly US, studies have identified duties, tasks or functions that are or could be performed by pharmacy technicians, 27,28 these studies assumed pharmacist presence. The present study aimed to examine pharmacy staff perceptions of how safe it would be for support staff to conduct a range of activities during a pharmacist's absence from the community pharmacy premises.…”