CHPS raises concerns around regulation of pharmacy techs

The Canadian Health Professional Secretariat (National Union of Public and General Employees) has written to the President of the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada to express concerns about the regulation of pharmacy technicians.

While CHPS recognizes that standards of practice and accountability are important aspects of the safe and effective health care, the NUPGE Secretariat raises five concerns around regulation of the pharmacy technicians, including the lack of a grandparenting process for current technicians, the high cost of the bridging program borne by pharmacy technicians, and the lack of job security if they no not pursue registration.

“We are aware of no other profession that, on moving from unregulated to regulated status, required its members to effectively requalify to practice,” states the letter from Co-Chairs Elisabeth Ballermann and Mike Luff.

OPSEU is a participating member on the Canadian Health Professional Secretariat. Concerns around the regulation of pharmacy technicians was raised in the last CHPS meeting at the end of November.

To read the full letter (PDF), click: CHPS letter to PEBC

Previous Diablogue article on this issue:


7 responses to “CHPS raises concerns around regulation of pharmacy techs

  1. good stuff. i suspect, however that the PEBC will simply pass the buck and say its the responsibility of the provincial regulating body to decide how to deal with these concerns. as such i hope the CHPS also forwards these concerns on the the Ontario College of Pharmacists, although they really arent concerned with any of these issues either, being an instrumental stakeholder in the whole process.

  2. CPHT Pharmacy Technician and always will be

    We are very disheartened by having our badges stripped of the title tech and returned with assistant. These may as well say cashier for all the public knows. So what does a recognized college diploma, and 15 years of certification fees paid mean to me? Nothing until I’ve paid my $5000 and then a fee thats 2/3 rds of a Pharmacist, plus mal practice insurance. All to do nothing that I’m not already doing. So all this so I can work another 10 years for the same pay (cause were already told there won’t be any pay increase) doing the same things. Our suggestion always was to have it optional for all. We can see where it would be a benefit in retail where there is a shortage of pharmacists. In hospital the weight has always been on the techs for all but clinical.

  3. Thank goodness someone has realized what a HUGE impact this has had on pharmacy technicians.

  4. Having taken the very first course in 1971 (pilot project as it was called),
    it has taken this long to become registered. Now I am expected to become registered or I lose my job after 39 years! We all should be grandfathered!
    I have trained many techs coming in and now will be let go. Pretty sad.

  5. Thanks, CHPS (OPSEU)! I hope all this dosen’t continue to fall on deaf ears. OCP is doing what ever they can do to make money, and make changes as they see fit. This happening now, and what will be next?!?!
    OCP process has been very disruptive to the work place, costing the employees hours of unproductive work.
    This is very degrading to all of us that have worked for many years as Certified Pharmacy technicians or otherwise. Hospital technicians have been doing these accomplishments for many years. These expections are new for many technicians working in the community pharmacies.
    I have worked in the health care profession for over 30 years, with many changes, but nothing as unorganized as this OCP process.

  6. Regarding the Proposed Standards of Practice for Registered Pharmacy Technicians……
    Interesting reading……to me it sounds like the Pharmacy Assistant can do everything in entering, preparing, and filling orders, but can’t check the final product……Shoppers have got it right (and we know this by the $ they are making and with a store on every corner)..You need more Assistants than Regulated Techs……in Retail and in Hospital alike.
    So Assistants can enter orders, prepare orders, prepare IV’s, prepack, prepare chemo…..since all of these things STILL have to be checked why does the hospital feel we all need to be regulated?
    An Assistant could still do med rec by the sounds of “Scenario 3” and the regulated tech could be the one to “reconcile” it…
    check out the OCP website$file/Proposed_For_Techs.pdf
    The OCP have certainly proven themselves to be NOT organized when it comes to setting up courses… teachers to teach (Unless you beg a pharmacist you know)…online courses I hear are a joke from others who are better around a computer than myself….I don’t believe for a second it’s about better healthcare….it’s all about the almighty $$$$ hmmmm…maybe they should take a lesson from Shopper’s too…..good management, wise choices, being good to customers will bring you profit

  7. It is so nice to hear that someone is on our side. I have been a tech…woops, I mean an assistant for 21years. I just recently completed all the requirements to become a tech, while awaiting the results of the qualifying exam. It was a horrible experience….and a lot of money out of my pocket. I am pretty sure I did not pass the OSPE so that will be another $900.00 out of my pocket to write it again. I can understand the regulating body wanting the licensing of pharmacy assistants, but there should be some kind of grandfathering to those who have so much experience. Why is and assistant right out of school exempt from writing the evaluating exam and doing the bridging exams? That makes no sense to me. My employer says no matter what…he would never choose a student right out of school compared to a assistant who has years of experience…he says there is no comparison, so why does the college not recognize this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s