2015 National Pharmacy Technician Workforce Study Shane P

2015 National Pharmacy Technician Workforce Study Shane P. Desselle, RPh, Ph. D, FAPh. A President, Applied Pharmacy Solutions Professor, Touro University California College of Pharmacy 1

Background and Rationale

Background and Rationale • Recent Evolutions in Pharmacy Practice and the Role of the Pharmacist • • • Medication Therapy Management Comprehensive Medication Management Public Health Patient-Centered Care Interprofessional Education/Interprofessional Practice Pharmacists’ Education, Skills and Attitudes Organizational Culture Pharmacy Logistical Enhancements and Constraints Pharmacy Practice Acts • Evolution in the profession would suggest that the roles and preparation of pharmacy support personnel have shifted

Background and Rationale • There have been calls for the study and advancement of the professional careers of pharmacy technicians for over a decade • The profession is beginning to recognize pharmacy technicians’ responsibilities and the potential for advanced roles • Education, training, and experience of pharmacy technicians remain largely unstandardized • More states requiring regulation of pharmacy technicians • Pharmacy technician research is limited • Study Funders: Pharmacy Technician Accreditation Commission (PTAC), Pharmacy Technician Certification Board (PTCB), and Pharmacy Workforce Center (PWC) • Study Principal Investigators: Shane P. Desselle, RPh, Ph. D, FAPh. A (Touro-California) and Erin R. Holmes, Ph. D (University of Mississippi)

Objectives

Study Objectives • Describe characteristics of CPh. Ts, their current job functions in various practice settings, and their reasons for becoming a technician • Determine primary methods of training • Determine the level of satisfaction with various intrinsic and extrinsic components of CPh. Ts’ jobs; identify sources contributing most to that satisfaction • Identify CPh. Ts’ employer and profession commitment, along with their ensuing, anticipated career moves • Identify sources of stress for CPh. Ts • Identify relationships between CPh. Ts’ job functions, satisfaction stress, commitment, stress, and reason for becoming a technician

Study Methods

Qualitative Phase • Purpose: to inform subject areas for the quantitative phase and provide richness of information about CPh. T quality of work life not described previously in the literature • Semi-structured, in-depth interviews using a convenience sample • Initial Questions • Impetus for becoming a pharmacy technician • Perception of preparedness for current job • Job responsibilities, perceptions of importance, need for change • Sources of stress and satisfaction • View of being a technician as a career (versus a job) • Mechanisms of recognition by employer Future plans; facilitators of loyalty • $20 gift cards for participants

Quantitative Phase • Questionnaire Survey (Online) • Pilot-Testing • Convenience sample (n=18), with 12 completing the survey • Average time of completion: 12 -14 minutes • Ease of completion and salience of survey questions was validated • Survey • Sample size calculations produced the need for 384 responses • 5, 000 email addresses acquired from PTCB • Modified Dillman Survey Method • Pre-notification email, email with survey link, two email reminders with survey link

Results

Qualitative (Semi-structured, In-depth Interviews) • 21 participants • 19 Females, 2 Males • Most from community (mix of independent and chain pharmacy) • Answers categorized coded into themes • Career Impetus • Job Responsibilities • Quality of Work Life • Equitable Partnership

Career Impetus • Began in another job in a pharmacy or health care organization • Pharmacists and peers were effective at recruiting technicians into this career • Technicians came from varied backgrounds • College degrees, training or education in sociology, communication and other fields • Many were uninspired in their past career and sought a profession where one could help other people

Job Responsibilities • View themselves as the “Face” of the pharmacy • Assisting the pharmacist to provide the best care possible for patients • Completing paperwork and talking to various stakeholders on the phone • There are very few responsibilities/functions that technicians view they do not carry out, and they stay busy most of the time

Quality of Work Life • It was asserted that many patients might not understand everything that technicians do for them, but that it is tremendously satisfying when they [patients] do, or at least show appreciation for the technician trying their best • Patients were reported to often be the biggest source of stress, yet were also the biggest source of satisfaction for technicians • The concept of job variety was mentioned on more than one occasion • A number of technicians reported that they feel each and every day is different and that this is a source of satisfaction • Technicians indicated that when the pharmacy is short-staffed for whatever reason, it can make for a stressful situation

Equitable Partnership • Technicians reported that they would like to remain in their jobs but would like to see creative ways to incent them into higher positions and wages • Technicians reported that some peers do not carry their weight and that perhaps more can be done to ameliorate the situations when this occurs • Many technicians saw their work as a partnership between them and their employer, stating that if they [employers] treat them fairly, then in turn they will give back their [technicians’] full effort, trust, and cooperation

Quantitative Survey Respondent Characteristics • 702 CPh. Ts completed the survey • 516 (75. 2%) were currently employed as a technician • 412 full-time • 67 part-time > 20 hrs/week • 37 part-time < 20 hrs/week • • 73 (10. 6%) were employed in another pharmacy- or health-related field 39 (5. 6%) were unemployed and looking for work 20 (2. 9%) were unemployed and not seeking work 8 (1. 2%) were retired • Gender • Females 433 (85. 4%) • Males 74 (14. 6%) • Average = 40. 2 years • Average experience with current employer = 7. 90 years • Average experience as a technician = 11. 30 years

Quantitative Survey Respondent Characteristics • Geographic Location • • • West Southeast Northeast Midwest Texas 121 (23. 7%) 141 (27. 6%) 59 (11. 5%) 150 (29. 4%) 40 (7. 8%) • Rurality • • Rural 61 (11. 9%) Small city 133 (26. 0%) Suburb of larger city 150 (29. 4%) Medium-sized or large city urban core 167 (32. 7%)

Respondents’ Primary Practice Setting • Large chain pharmacy 144 (28. 0%) • Mail order pharmacy 11 (2. 1%) • Hospital/health system (inpatient) 122 (23. 7%) • Specialty pharmacy 11 (2. 1%) • Mass merchandiser 46 (8. 9%) • Small chain pharmacy 08 (1. 6%) • Independent community pharmacy 40 (7. 8%) • Government/military 08 (1. 6%) • Supermarket pharmacy 35 (6. 8%) • Ambulatory care (not a dispensing pharmacy) 04 (0. 8%) 22 (4. 3%) • Hospital/health system (outpatient) • Nursing home/long-term care • Clinic-based pharmacy • Home health/infusion 18 (3. 5%) • Pharmacy technician training program (e. g. , vocational school) 01 (0. 2%) 13 (2. 5%) 12 (2. 3%) • Pharmaceutical industry • Other 01 (0. 2%) 06 (1. 2%)

Requirement to Become Certified • Required for the current job, as a whole: • 358 (69. 8%) • Required by State: • 199 (39. 4%) • Required by employer: • 324 (63. 2%)

Reasons for Becoming A Technician* Community General interest in pharmacy and/or health career Hospital All 188 (67. 4%) 97 (64. 5%) 333 (65. 7%) Recommendation of a friend, colleague, or family member 71 (24. 8%) 35 (24. 3%) 127 (24. 6%) Recruitment or encouragement by a pharmacist 49 (17. 1%) 21 (14. 6%) 77 (14. 9%) Work schedule/flexibility 40 (14. 0%) 15 (10. 4%) 63 (12. 2%) Salary 41 (14. 3%) 19 (13. 2%) 83 (16. 1%) Benefits 19 (6. 6%) 22 (15. 3%) 51 (9. 9%) Fulfilling career 41 (14. 3%) 20 (13. 9%) 75 (14. 6%) Exposure by working at a different job in a pharmacy organization 39 (13. 6%) 25 (17. 4%) 76 (14. 8%) Work at a previous employer, technician-related 17 (5. 9%) 9 (6. 3%) 35 (6. 8%) An opportunity to serve the public 45 (15. 7%) 19 (13. 2%) 72 (14. 0%) A desire to help people 121 (42. 3%) 46 (31. 9%) 196 (38. 0%) *Respondents could select up to 3 choices

Respondents’ Method of Training* Community Hospital All OJT 1 from employer 233 (81. 5%) 104 (72. 2%) 395 (76. 6%) Self-guided training 105 (36. 7%) 40 (27. 8%) 168 (32. 6%) Structured training program from employer, unaccredited 46 (16. 1%) 17 (11. 8%) 75 (14. 5%) Structured training program from employer, accredited 26 (9. 1%) 10 (6. 9%) 43 (8. 3%) Structured training program from, unsure of accreditation status 19 (6. 6%) 6 (4. 2%) 29 (5. 6%) Standalone training program (vocational school), Unaccredited 17 (5. 9%) 8 (5. 6%) 29 (5. 6%) Standalone training program (vocational school), Accredited 46 (16. 1%) 27 (18. 8%) 89 (17. 2%) Standalone training program (vocational school), Unsure of Accreditation 24 (8. 4%) 20 (13. 9%) 53 (10. 3%) 1 OJT: On-the-Job Training *Respondents could select up to 3 choices

Helpfulness of Education/Training Modality in Preparation for Current Work Responsibilities* Community Hospital All 3. 30± 0. 96 3. 20± 1. 02 3. 21± 1. 03 PTCB or similar certification 3. 36± 0. 79 3. 25± 0. 03 3. 32± 0. 85 Work at a previous employer, technician-related 3. 55± 0. 82 3. 51± 0. 85 3. 49± 0. 09 Work at a previous employer, not as a technician 2. 48± 1. 12 2. 54± 1. 17 2. 46± 1. 14 Formal OJT from employer 3. 55± 0. 74 3. 57± 0. 76 3. 53± 0. 78 Guidance and mentorship from supervisor(s) 3. 52± 0. 76 3. 43± 0. 89 3. 44± 0. 85 Guidance and mentorship from peer technicians 3. 49± 0. 80 3. 46± 0. 83 3. 45± 0. 84 Formal training/education program at a college or vocational school *4 -point scale of "helpfulness“ (1=Not helpful at all, to 4=Very helpful)

Number & Proportion Who Rated Training Source As “Very Helpful”* Formal training/education program at a college or vocational school PTCB or similar certification Community Hospital All 79 (59. 2%) 44 (53. 7%) 144 (54. 1%) 136 (52. 3%) 66 (52. 4%) 243 (52. 5%) Work at a previous employer, technician-related 99 (70. 7%) 68 (69. 4%) 211 (69. 2%) Work at a previous employer, not as a technician 43 (23. 9%) 24 (29. 3%) 79 (24. 7%) Formal OJT from employer 163 (68. 5%) 82 (69. 5%) 286 (67. 3%) Guidance and mentorship from supervisor(s) 160 (65. 6%) 76 (63. 3%) 272 (62. 2%) Guidance and mentorship from peer technicians 154 (64. 4%) 77 (63. 6%) 268 (62. 5%) *Selected "4" on the 4 -point scale (Very Helpful)

Community CPh. Ts’ Level of Involvement, Perceived Importance to Them, and to the Employer Receive prescriptions Collect or communicate patient information Involvement* 2. 85± 0. 46 2. 87± 0. 29 Assess prescription for completeness, accuracy, authenticity, legality, or reimbursement eligibility Importance** 3. 69± 0. 57 3. 78± 0. 48 2. 80± 0. 49 Importance to Employer** 3. 59± 0. 63 3. 58± 0. 61 3. 77± 0. 53 Input a prescription 2. 84± 0. 46 3. 75± 0. 54 3. 60± 0. 65 Provide prescription to patient or caregiver 2. 66± 0. 69 3. 53± 0. 82 3. 45± 0. 83 Direct patient to pharmacist for counseling 2. 72± 0. 62 3. 67± 0. 65 3. 57± 0. 67 Identify medications and supplies to be ordered or manage inventory 2. 70± 0. 62 3. 66± 0. 63 3. 50± 0. 74 Use and maintain automated technology 2. 59± 0. 71 3. 44± 0. 92 3. 29± 0. 93 Communicate with insurance companies to determine coverage for prescriptions & services 2. 72± 0. 62 3. 63± 0. 74 3. 45± 0. 80 Fill/label a prescription 2. 89± 0. 40 3. 77± 0. 53 3. 58± 0. 66 Verify the work of other technicians 2. 26± 0. 79 3. 34± 0. 96 3. 23± 0. 96 *Measured on a 3 -point scale from 1=not at all involved, to 3=involved very frequently **Measured on a 4 -point scale from 1=very little to no importance, to 4=Very important 3. 61± 0. 51

Community Pharmacy CPh. T Task/Activity Involvement • A relatively high level of involvement in each activity under evaluation • Confirmed qualitative research results • Viewed all activities with high level of importance • Slight discrepancies between importance and perceived importance to employer, especially for collecting patient information, assessing prescription, managing inventory, and inputting prescriptions

Hospital/Health System CPh. Ts’ Level of Involvement, Perceived Importance to Them, and to the Employer Involvement* Importance** Importance to Employer** Replenish unit dose carts 2. 34± 0. 86 3. 20± 1. 00 2. 98± 0. 98 Restock floor stock and/or automated dispensing cabinets 2. 80± 0. 55 3. 59± 0. 70 3. 24± 0. 88 Compound sterile preps (excluding chemo) 2. 57± 0. 72 3. 57± 0. 85 3. 19± 0. 94 Compound chemo preps 1. 62± 0. 84 3. 12± 1. 15 3. 06± 1. 06 Order entry activities 1. 71± 0. 85 2. 79± 1. 16 2. 73± 1. 21 Purchasing/inventory management 1. 98± 0. 85 3. 19± 1. 04 3. 03± 0. 97 Information technology system management 1. 73± 0. 80 2. 83± 1. 14 2. 76± 1. 11 Controlled substance system management 2. 12± 0. 79 3. 38± 0. 98 3. 19± 0. 95 Supervision of other technicians 1. 96± 0. 85 3. 12± 1. 03 2. 87± 1. 08 Checking dispensing of other techs 1. 78± 0. 86 2. 73± 1. 22 2. 56± 1. 24 Billing 1. 71± 0. 88 2. 69± 1. 26 2. 76± 1. 20 *Measured on a 3 -point scale from 1=not at all involved, to 3=involved very frequently **Measured on a 4 -point scale from 1=very little to no importance, to 4=Very important

Hospital/Health System CPh. Ts’ Level of Involvement, Perceived Importance to Them, and to the Employer (continued) Involvement* Importance** Import to Employer** Criteria-based screening of medical records to identify med-related problems 1. 49± 0. 78 2. 64± 1. 19 2. 62± 1. 20 Preparation of clinical monitoring info for pharmacist review 1. 39± 0. 71 2. 57± 1. 25 2. 49± 1. 18 Dispensing meds with remote video supervision 1. 20± 0. 55 2. 12± 1. 24 2. 20± 1. 24 Medication assistance program management 1. 28± 0. 62 2. 32± 1. 24 2. 34± 1. 22 Initiation of med reconciliation 1. 43± 0. 74 2. 62± 1. 20 2. 51± 1. 17 Quality assurance activities/ unit inspections 2. 48± 0. 72 3. 32± 0. 90 3. 14± 0. 93 Packaging/repackaging activities 2. 43± 0. 72 3. 29± 0. 95 3. 03± 1. 00 Facilitating transitions of care 1. 61± 0. 84 2. 73± 1. 21 2. 66± 1. 18 *Measured on a 3 -point scale from 1=not at all involved, to 3=involved very frequently **Measured on a 4 -point scale from 1=very little to no importance, to 4=Very important

Hospital/Health System CPh. T Task/Activity Involvement • The range of tasks/activities and level of involvement much more varied than was the case for community pharmacy CPh. Ts • Highest level of involvement in floor stock, quality assurance, sterile compounding, repackaging, and controlled substance system management • Lowest in dispensing meds with remote video supervision, medication assistance program involvement, preparation of clinical monitoring information, and screening of medical records • Largest gaps between self-ascribed importance and perceived importance by the employer found in regard in compounding non-sterile products (excluding chemotherapy), repackaging activities, supervision of other technicians, and replenishing unit dose carts

CPh. T Satisfaction with Various Facets of their Job Community Hospital Total* Work schedule 4. 60± 1. 23 4. 64± 1. 37 4. 68± 1. 26 Pharmacist co-workers 4. 84± 1. 17 4. 59± 1. 27 4. 78± 1. 91 Pharmacy technician co-workers 4. 62± 1. 16 4. 18± 1. 30 4. 51± 1. 20 Workload 4. 17± 1. 38 3. 90± 1. 42 4. 15± 1. 37 Pay/wages 3. 40± 1. 49 3. 37± 1. 50 3. 47± 1. 48 Opportunity to use your knowledge 4. 79± 1. 11 4. 35± 1. 35 4. 61± 1. 23 Opportunity for advancement 3. 54± 1. 54 3. 11± 1. 52 3. 44± 1. 54 Employee benefits 3. 86± 1. 50 4. 25± 1. 44 4. 00± 1. 49 Level of stress 3. 30± 1. 51 3. 45± 1. 49 3. 41± 1. 49 Fair treatment from management 4. 10± 1. 44 3. 65± 1. 49 3. 99± 1. 48 *Measured on a six-point scale from 1=Very Dissatisfied, to 6=Very Satisfied; Mean±standard deviation; Total represents community, hospital, and all other.

Number & Proportion of CPh. Ts Reporting High Dissatisfaction with Various Facets of their Job Community Hospital Total* 14 (5. 9%) 10 (9. 1%) 28 (6. 7%) Pharmacist co-workers 11 (4. 6%) 9 (8. 2%) 23 (5. 5%) Work schedule Pharmacy technician co-workers 12 (5. 1%) 12 (10. 9%) 26 (6. 2%) Workload 29 (12. 2%) 19 (17. 3%) 53 (12. 7%) Pay/wages 65 (27. 4%) 33 (30. 0%) 111 (26. 6%) Opportunity to use your knowledge 11 (4. 6%) 14 (12. 7%) 33 (7. 9%) Opportunity for advancement 63 (26. 6%) 41 (37. 3%) 124 (29. 7%) Employee benefits 45 (10. 0%) 13 (11. 8%) 74 (17. 7%) Level of stress 74 (31. 2%) 27 (24. 5%) 116 (27. 8%) Fair treatment from Management 33 (13. 9%) 25 (22. 7%) 70 (16. 8%) *Total represents community, hospital, and all other

Contributors to CPh. T Stress Community Hospital Total* 3. 40± 0. 96 3. 29± 1. 14 3. 37± 1. 02 Being short-staffed 3. 73± 1. 06 3. 65± 1. 07 3. 63± 1. 09 Other employees not doing their fair share of work 3. 36± 1. 18 3. 80± 1. 09 3. 44± 1. 18 Disagreements with technician peers at my job 2. 24± 1. 14 2. 77± 1. 17 2. 38± 1. 15 Patients/customers/families who are rude or impatient 3. 05± 1. 10 2. 18± 1. 16 2. 67± 1. 20 Dealing with staff from other health care providers 2. 32± 0. 89 2. 26± 1. 04 2. 25± 0. 95 Inadequate technology, hardware, or other resources 2. 59± 1. 20 2. 66± 1. 25 2. 63± 1. 22 Poorly designed workflow and division of labor 2. 59± 1. 15 2. 99± 1. 31 2. 74± 1. 22 Lack of rest breaks, or time to take scheduled rest breaks 2. 70± 1. 32 2. 55± 1. 31 2. 54± 1. 29 The amount or volume of work *Measured on a five-point scale from 1=Little or no stress, to 5=A tremendous amount of stress; Mean±standard deviation; Total represents community, hospital, and all other.

CPh. Ts Reporting Highest Levels of Stress, by Factor/Facet of Work Community Hospital Total* 111 (47. 0%) 48 (43. 6%) 193 (46. 4%) Being short-staffed 140 (59. 3%) 71 (64. 5%) 240 (57. 7%) Other employees not doing their fair share of work 106 (44. 9%) 71 (64. 5%) 203 (48. 8%) Disagreements with technician peers at my job 39 (16. 5%) 28 (25. 5%) 73 (17. 5%) Patients/customers/families who are rude or impatient 75 (31. 8%) 14 (12. 7%) 98 (23. 6%) Dealing with staff from other health care providers 18 (7. 6%) 11 (10. 0%) 31 (07. 5%) Inadequate technology, hardware, or other resources 53 (22. 5%) 31 (28. 2%) 101 (24. 3%) Poorly designed workflow and division of labor 50 (21. 2%) 37 (33. 6%) 105 (25. 2%) Lack of rest breaks, or time to take scheduled rest breaks 68 (28. 8%) 25 (22. 7%) 97 (23. 3%) The amount or volume of work *Number and proportion of technicians reporting a “ 4” (high) or “ 5” (tremendous) amount of stress on a 5 -point scale, emanating from various sources of stress at their job. Total represents community, hospital, and all other.

CPh. T Commitment to Employer Plans to remain with current employer Community Hospital Total* < 2 years 49 (20. 8%) 15 (13. 6%) 78 (18. 8%) 2 -5 years 75 (31. 8%) 29 (26. 4%) 128 (30. 8%) 5 -10 years 38 (16. 1%) 21 (19. 1%) 70 (16. 8%) > 10 years 74 (31. 4%) 45 (40. 9%) 140 (33. 7%) Hospital Total* Characterization of commitment to current employer Community Looking to leave at first opportunity 20 (8. 5%) 6 (5. 5%) 31 (7. 5%) 31 (13. 2%) 18 (16. 4%) 57 (13. 7%) 100 (42. 6%) 39 (35. 5%) 166 (40. 0%) 84 (35. 7%) 47 (42. 7%) 161 (38. 8%) Does not feel much commitment and keeps options open Does not plan to change unless something unexpected happens Feels strong commitment and plans future with them for the long haul *Total represents community, hospital, and all other

CPh. T Commitment to Profession Plans to remain in career as a pharmacy technician Community Hospital Total* < 2 years 16 (06. 8%) 08 (07. 3%) 28 (06. 7%) 2 -5 years 62 (26. 3%) 17 (15. 5%) 99 (23. 8%) 5 -10 years 46 (19. 5%) 22 (20. 0%) 78 (18. 8%) > 10 years 112 (47. 5%) 63 (57. 3%) 211 (50. 7%) Characterization of plans to remain as a pharmacy technician Looking to leave this career, altogether Community 21 (08. 9%) Hospital 08 (07. 3%) Total* 38 (05. 2%) No plans currently, but might not take much for me to change 42 (17. 9%) 16 (14. 5%) 65 (15. 7%) In spite of challenges, I hope to make this a career for some time 87 (37. 0%) 44 (40. 0%) 154 (37. 1%) Completely committed to this career for my entire work life 85 (36. 2%) 42 (38. 2%) 158 (38. 1%) When ending work as a technician, I will. . . Community Hospital 103 (43. 8%) 66 (60. 0%) 204 (49. 2%) position 64 (27. 2%) 23 (20. 9%) 101 (24. 3%) Change to a non-health care position 23 (09. 8%) 05 (04. 5%) 41 (09. 9%) Attend a college or university 22 (09. 4%) 12 (10. 9%) 37 (08. 9%) Other 23 (09. 8%) 04 (03. 6%) 32 (07. 7%) Retire Total* Change to another type of health care *Total represents community, hospital, and all other

Additional Analyses • Higher commitment (profession & employer) reported by those working more hours/week • Females reported higher levels of employer and especially profession commitment • Higher profession commitment reported by those who became a technician through recommendation of a friend or due to a desire to help people

Additional Correlation Analyses • Job satisfaction very highly correlated with employer commitment and highly, yet inversely correlated with stress • Satisfaction is highly correlated with commitment to the profession • There also strong relationships with perceived usefulness of supervisor mentoring, OJT, and peer mentoring • Stress levels are inversely correlated with employer and profession commitment • Stress is not associated with perceived usefulness of training • Satisfaction is important, but not the sole factor contributing to commitment.

Geographic Considerations • Slightly higher levels of job satisfaction reported by CPh. Ts from Texas and from West regions • More CPh. Ts from Texas and from West are required to be certified • Higher use of OJT reported from those in Midwest and Northeast regions • In community pharmacy, those in Texas and Southeast regions more involved in verifying the work of other technicians • In hospital pharmacy, those from West & Midwest regions more likely involved in floor stock and related activities • All respondents from Northeast region involved in sterile compounding • CPh. Ts from West more likely involved in management of medication distribution and other systems

Additional Findings with Regard to Practice Setting • In Community Pharmacy: • CPh. Ts more involved in patient counseling reported higher stress • CPh. Ts involved in the use of technology reported higher profession commitment • In Hospital/Health-systems Pharmacy: • Higher stress was reported by those CPh. Ts involved in compounding chemotherapeutic agents and in criteria-based screening of medication records • Lower stress reported by those involved in purchasing activities • CPh. Ts with higher involvement in floor stock maintenance, inventory management, controlled substance management, billing activities, and repackaging reported higher levels of profession commitment

Usefulness of Training Correlates with Other Variables • Satisfaction highly correlated with employer & profession commitment and highly inversely correlated with stress • Strong associations/correlations between perceived utility of education/training modality with satisfaction, stress, and commitment. Thus, if a technician perceived usefulness of any of these training methods, then he/she would more likely be satisfied, more committed, and less stressed on the job

Study Limitations and Strengths • The low response rate of the survey limits generalizability to the entire CPh. T population • Only technicians certified through PTCB were sampled • Responses might have come more readily from those with either very favorable or very unfavorable attitudes toward their jobs/careers • The use of a randomized sampling procedure across an entire nation of CPh. Ts provides representativeness, and the proportion of respondents across practice setting, gender, age, and geographic location were commensurate with expectations • Responses to the quality of work life questions aligned with expectations • Psychometric evaluation of responses demonstrated very good internal consistency reliability and construct validity • The results of the semi-structured, in-depth interviews are subject to the limitations inherent to use of this approach • These interviews were used to provide richness in information and to induce theory • The resultant data are not meant to be generalizable beyond the small sample of respondents.

Discussion Points • CPh. Ts perform a large array of functions. There might be opportunity for more engagement in certain functions, particularly in the hospital/health system setting • Involvement in certain functions associated with greater commitment, satisfaction, and stress. Management of systems activities often associated with greater satisfaction and commitment • CPh. Ts often entered the profession due to the desire to be in a healthcare field and for wanting to help people. Many were recruited successfully by a pharmacist; pharmacists and peers might be effective in future recruitment strategies

Discussion Points • While OJT, peer mentorship, and previous experience were deemed most helpful, all types of training/education evaluated were deemed quite helpful, including PTCB certification • The more helpful the training, the better quality of work life outcomes reported • While CPh. Ts reported relatively high levels of commitment, there a number of them who indicated that it might not take that much for them to leave their employer, primarily, and the profession, secondarily • CPh. Ts reported lower satisfaction with rate of pay, level of stress, and opportunities for advancement

Discussion Points • While mostly consistent, there a few differences across practice setting with regard to satisfiers and stressors on the job • CPh. Ts reported satisfaction with ability to use their knowledge. The ability to use one’s knowledge deemed very important for commitment and other quality of work life issues • There are some regional differences in CPh. T practice functions, and this bears out in their reported commitment and quality of work life

Conclusion

Q&A