Feedback for Proposed Changes to the Pharmacy Act (Registration and Quality Assurance)

Your name, email and phone number will not be made public. If you are commenting on behalf of an organization, the organization name will be made public.


Read the Feedback

1.
Pharmacy Technician  ·  Sept. 28, 2017

The 2 part designation for technicians is long overdue. However I do feel that the number of practice hours should be incorporated with the practice assessment.

2.
Pharmacy Technician  ·  Sept. 28, 2017

Having just recently completed the SPT myself with little benefit from it, I agree with the amendments to the act. For someone who has years of experience in pharmacy already, forcing a pharmacy technician candidate to complete a certain numbers of weeks/hours as part of their training can be more a hindrance than a help. I also believe that the 12 week SPT training is too short for someone who only has college education and very little working experience in pharmacy. There is no minimum amount of hours one must complete before feeling competent. By eliminating the hourly reporting of practice, It puts the onus on the individual to truly self reflect on their knowledge and whether they feel they can safely practice. I do have concern that this may allow more candidates to get licensed sooner than they should and lack the experience to work to their full scope safely. The SPT program for technicians needs a complete overhaul. Allow the preceptor and preceptee to assess their progress more freely and come to a consensus on how long the training should be. Allow the preceptor to notify the college when they feel the candidate is fully competent to be licensed. The preceptee should not only be judged on their knowledge, but also their attitude. Completing all of the assignments provided in the SPT correctly does not mean the individual should be allowed to practice if they have poor relations with the clientele or their colleagues. Having the correct attitude towards patient care is more important than knowing everything, and I personally do not want to be cared for by people who are only in the field for the money.

3.
Pharmacy Technician  ·  Sept. 28, 2017

These are fantastic ideas and properly reflect the different roles in the pharmacy. Next it would be nice to have the OCP acronym encompass technicians as well: Ontario College of PharmacY. It's a good idea to have students and interns 'practising' what they will be practising so that they have realistic exposure well before having full licensure. Part B technicians is a smart move. Lastly, a practice assessment is a much more accurate reflection of how a technician is keeping current in their profession compared to assuming that practise hours corrolate with practise quality. Excellent.

4.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 5, 2017

re. the PT intern position, would that allow the independent technical double-check to be under direct supervision ? Might be difficult to directly supervise that task without a full "triple-check" by the preceptor, as is currently done.

5.
Pharmacy Technician  ·  Oct. 5, 2017

All proposed changes are excellent. I especially approve of the recognition of students (Intern/Intern Technician) as they move forward in the profession, allowing them to practice within their scope of practice under the direct supervision of a pharmacist. Those of us who work in other pharmacy related fields are looking forward to Part B registration. Great Job!

6.
Pharmacy Technician  ·  Oct. 5, 2017

I think this would be great! It would let everyone work in their scope. As of right now as a register tech, I don’t get to use my whole scope on a daily basis.

7.
Pharmacy Technician  ·  Oct. 5, 2017

In daily routine for community Pharmacy workflow, control and narcotics receiving, ordering and verbal prescriptions authority should be extended to Pharmacy Techs. It helps immensely to handle the workflow professionally where pharmacists are the sole authorized designation in Pharmacy who are adhered to century old practice to delegate this tasks, whereas Pharmacy techs have full abilities to perform this tasks excellently. It will free up time for pharmacists to focus their clinical work more attentively, and will give better platform for techs to provide their practice if scope.

8.
Pharmacy Technician  ·  Oct. 5, 2017

Fully agree with the 2 part Technicians. I fall into both categories in 2 separate roles though. Definitely need the Part B in the role I hold in Information Technology where I help support 15 hospitals' pharmacy departments from the back end side of things in regard to their computer software, drug formularies, rules, and many other tools/applications. The Intern designation is also good for those not quite registered but in process of doing so. There are limitations we need to set on their positions within hospital pharmacy to maintain to proper privileges and preferences given to their positions.

9.
Public  ·  Oct. 5, 2017

Language proficiency requirements need to be improved. I have been part of OSCE's & OSPE's where I cannot understand what the candidate is saying. This puts the public at risk if they are unable to understand the pharmacist or tech.

It is one thing to pass a written language proficiency test, but it is quite another to be able to make yourself understood and understand what a patient is asking.

Pharmacy Technician  ·  Oct. 15, 2017

Yes I agree with having some changes in the language proficiency aspect. I also support the idea of incorporating Pharmacy Technicians in the acronym of OCP

10.
Pharmacy Technician  ·  Oct. 5, 2017

It would be beneficial to see Pharmacy Technicians practice as interns seeing as the scope of practice for both Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians are expanding. I believe this will also result in a closer working relationship and compelete trust between both the Pharmacist, Pharmacy Technician and other colleagues and will better serve the public. This will also better prepare Pharmacy Technicians that are taking their pebc exam because they'll have had a chance to experience what their scope of practice is from experience rather than what's been taught from a text book.

It has been my experience from the whole registration process as a technician that it hasn't felt very 'hands on'. I would have appreciated having the ability to practice as a technician throughout the registration process to better allow me to challenge the exam and become comfortable with the scope of practice to better serve the public. It will allow Technicians to feel more comfortable asking questions and receive the proper training on how to handle consultations, product training (glucometers, blood pressure machines, inhalers, etc) meds checks and gathering information for best possible medication histories.

Another issue is that many out of school will work in only hospital or community practice settings and I feel that PEBC and OCP needs to implement some kind of cross training program between the two categories so that anyone who is taking the exam can have the proper knowledge of both practice settings. With the fees that are being paid to challenge the exam there needs to be more resources made available to applicants. The cost of the pebc exam is just outrageous.

Thank you for your time I'm very excited to see how these changes will become implemented and what it means for Pharmacy Technicians and the impact it will have.

11.
Pharmacy Technician  ·  Oct. 5, 2017

Looking forward to changes, as every change is for the better. The assessment of a professional is at its best while on the "job" , hence the intern position is for sure a welcome concept. The Part A and B if on par with the idea of "patient care" is something to be looked at very carefully, as has been noted pharmacy technicians tend to get too focussed and miss the frequent updates in the pharmacy. Hence number of practice hours should be incorporated with the practice assessment.

12.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 6, 2017

In Part III does section 10. (2) include all pharmacists now practicing, or only those seeking registration or re-registration? (Unclear).

13.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 7, 2017

I agree on improving language competency for both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. I don't agree on changing the registration from the number of hours to self-reporting competency. We have too many assessments already- way more than any other profession. We have a learning portfolio, practice visits from the College, and the exam. It is disruptive to the practice and personal life and it is demeaning to the professionals. If an individual practices a certain number of hours and there are no complaints logged against him or her- it should be sufficient for re-registering.

14.
Public  ·  Oct. 8, 2017

Thank you for continuing to make positive changes in the name of patient safety. This is clearly a much needed update.

15.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 9, 2017

I fully agree with the proposed changes. I would add to self declaration and workplace assessment a quarterly, well designed, mandotry CME with focus on minor ailments, continuous quality assurance for medication safety, patient interviewing, travel and adult vaccines, expanded scope of practice, smoking cessation, diabetes prevention, opioid guidelines and deprescribing, etc. We want to take the profession into new highs to meet challenges the system encounters by the current and future demographics.

16.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 9, 2017

These changes are necessary as we work to expand the role of the Pharmacist to better meet the needs of the public and support our health care system.

Providing a structured method to regulate the skillset of our partners in the dispensary as well is important to support these changes. Ideally as we move forward we need to work towards a dispensary workflow process that only incorporates regulated Pharmacy Technicians and Pharmacists. Non regulated dispensary personnel need to be phased out of the dispensary over the short term.

17.
Public  ·  Oct. 10, 2017

looks like an open door ... for a " nurse practitioner" ......to "directly prescribe"

18.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 10, 2017

I agree with most of the proposed amendments to the Act .I think it is necessary in the face of current changes to pharmacy practice and the emphasis on patient focused care.To fully implement the expanded scope of practice expectations , there is need to free up more time for the pharmacist
I agree that the student registration is no longer relevant .Also Language competency for technicians , interns and newly registered pharmacists is a good idea . Will the proposed assessments for registered Interns and Technicians mean they will be able to do more than they do now ?will they be mandated to get Liability Insurance?

19.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 10, 2017

I think it is a good idea to change the process from hourly to self declaration.

20.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 10, 2017

"practice hour and time frame requirements removed and replaced with a requirement to demonstrate competence through a practice assessment"

I'm not clear on what the above means, in practical terms? Is it a yearly declaration of competence? Does it mean pharmacists and technicians have to complete yearly practice assessments? I found the wording vague.

The other changes proposed seem reasonable to me, and are in line with changes in pharmacy education in Ontario.

21.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 11, 2017

I agree with simplifying the registration process and elimination of unnecessary steps. I hope other requirements are also simplified while maintaining quality and maintaining the professional respect to both pharmacists and technicians.

22.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 12, 2017

As a former Registrar I am usually reluctant to comment on College proposals; however, I feel the need to share my concerns/thoughts respecting the proposals relating to the QA program. My primary concern is that the College is using the same staff person during a visit to the same pharmacy- to perform both a compliance-based inspection under the DPRA and then a QA assessment under the Pharmacy Act. Notwithstanding the creation of ‘firewalls’ to separate the two functions, I believe that using the same College Practice Advisors, to perform inspections relating to operational standards (per the DPRA) followed by contemporaneous QA assessments (per the Pharmacy Act) which are educational, remedial and non-punitive- create perceptions that are misleading to members, and may raise questions of appropriateness. The Health Professions Procedural Code (S.83) is clear that information gathered under Quality Assurance is confidential, not to be shared with any other committee or program area of the College; in my view, using inspectors to conduct quality assurance assessments may create problems for the College, and the practice should be reconsidered. I also believe that the proposed regulation needs to include more details regarding what the new components actually are/will be. As example, a required component of any QA program is a Peer Review process. Since College staff are not peers, I think provisions need to be made in the proposal to include such member/peer interactions, as part of the details. I agree that too much detail may preclude flexibility, but would suggest that enough particulars respecting the program and its components need to be included to ensure the components and integrity of the QA program are maintained and continued going forward, in compliance with the statutory requirements

23.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 12, 2017

I do not have any objections to the proposed changes.

24.
Applicant  ·  Oct. 13, 2017

For international pharmacy graduates.......

  1. While it is imperative to ensure that language proficiency is up to standard for each member in order to effect proper communication in the workplace, it is an unnecessary step for pharmacists whose FIRST language is English to have to sit a Test of English exam in order to complete the registration process. Consideration should definitely be given for this step to be eliminated or modified. Instead, monitoring could be done by preceptors at the initiation of the PACE program. If any "triggers" (defined by NAPRA) are detected then recommendation could be made for that individual to do such testing or to complete a recommended course to sharpen use of the English language (depending on the level of incompetency detected).

  2. Modify the requirement for the Bridging Program so that it is mandatory after 3 failed attempts at the Qualifying Exams (instead of after the first attempt). Failing at the first attempt is not a strong enough indicator that an individual needs this kind of intervention. For an individual who would like to re-sit the exam right away, the bridging program, while having its advantages, reduces such individual's focus on some core areas that this exam covers and lengthens the time period for a pharmacist to complete registration and be fully functional.

25.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 13, 2017

i agree with the proposals

26.
Pharmacy Technician  ·  Oct. 14, 2017

Looking forward to proposed changes.I strongly fill that two part registration allows pharmacy technicians to perform their duties in fuller capacity.

27.
Pharmacist  ·  Oct. 15, 2017

I have a number of questions regarding this-- will pharmacy assistants who have been working at the pharmacy for over 15 years also have to be registered as technicians? A lot of them are very proficient due to experience and that would be a hardship for them . Secondly ----- PACE is great for those students who have already had practice in community pharmacy. I strongly feel that 3 weeks working in a pharmacy prior to registration is just not enough experience to working as a pharmacist in Ontario. At least 6 months experience in working in community pharmacy is important prior to PACE.

Back to Consultation