Tag Archives: instructor

Designing Your Continuing Cannabis Education Program

By RJ Starr
No Comments

As many states’ medical cannabis programs are already in full swing and several are launching or nearing their one-year or biennial maturation periods, medical cannabis dispensaries and cannabis cultivation and processing facilities should be fine-tuning their Continuing Cannabis Education Program, or CCEP, and be ready for inspection by state agencies.

While states with medical cannabis programs administer them through various agencies such as Department of Medicine/Health, Department of Pharmacy, Department of Commerce, Alcoholic Beverage Control, each has their own minimum requirements for continuing education in the medical cannabis space, and each structures their program in the direction within which that particular regulatory agency leans. Each state’s personality also brings an influential component as well; for example, a state with a highly visible opioid crisis may place greater emphasis on substance abuse training.

Suffice it to say that while there is certainly insight to be gained from knowing your particular state, there are certain elements of an ongoing professional development program that should be considered in each CCEP. This article will explore a few of the elements integral to any successful human capital and professional development plan from a vantage of compliance, and will offer some insight into the exceptional training methodology designed by Midwest Compassion Center and Bloom Medicinals.

There are a number of key considerations in developing a Continuing Cannabis Education Program, and a thoughtful CCEP should be developed specifically to meet the needs of both the organization and its employees. This can be done by a needs assessment consisting of three levels: organizational, occupational, and individual assessments.

  1. Needs assessment and learning objectives. This part of the framework development asks you to consider what kind of training is needed in your organization. Once you have determined the training needed, you can set learning objectives to measure at the end of the training.
    1. Organizational assessment. In this type of needs assessment, we can determine the skills, knowledge and abilities our cannabis dispensaries need in order to meet their strategic objectives. This type of assessment considers things such as changing laws, demographics and technology trends. Overall, this type of assessment looks at how the organization as a whole can handle its weaknesses while promoting strengths.
    2. Occupational (task) assessment. This type of assessment looks at the specific tasks, skills, knowledge and abilities required of our employees to do the jobs necessary within our dispensaries.
    3. Individual assessment. An individual assessment looks at the performance of an individual employee and determines what training should be accomplished for that individual.
  2. Consideration of learning styles. Making sure to teach to a variety of learning styles is important to development of training programs.
  3. Delivery mode. What is the best way to get your message across? Is classroom or web-based training more appropriate, or should one-on-one mentoring be used? Successful training programs should incorporate a variety of delivery methods.
  4. How much money do you have to spend on this training? This does not only include the cost of materials, but the cost of time. Consideration should also be given to the costs associated with not investing in training: CFO asks CEO, “What happens if we invest in developing our people and then they leave us?” CEO: “What happens if we don’t, and they stay?”
  5. Delivery style. Will the training be self-paced or instructor led? What kinds of discussions and interactions can be developed in conjunction with this training? The delivery style must take into account people’s individual learning styles. A balance of lectures, discussions, role-playing, and activities that solidify concepts are considered part of delivery style.
  6. Audience. Who will be part of this training? Do you have a mix of roles, such as accounting people and marketing people? What are the job responsibilities of these individuals, and how can you make the training relevant to their individual jobs? The audience for the training is an important aspect when developing your CCEP. This can allow the training to be better developed to meet the needs and the skills of a particular group of people.
  7. Content. What needs to be taught? How will you sequence the information? The content obviously is an important consideration. Learning objectives and goals for the training should be established and articulated before content is developed.
  8. Timelines. How long will it take to develop the training? Is there a deadline for training to be completed, and if so, what risk analysis can be used to determine the consequences of not meeting that deadline? After content is developed, understanding time constraints is an important aspect. Will the training take one hour or a day to deliver? What is the timeline consideration in terms of when people should take the training?
  9. Communication. How will employees know the training is available to them? Letting people know when and where the training will take place is part of communication.
  10. Measuring effectiveness. How will you know if your training worked? What ways will you use to measure this? The final aspect of developing a training framework is to consider how it will be measured. At the end, how will you know if the trainees learned what they needed to learn?

A thorough review of your state’s rules and regulations should take place quarterly, with one or more specific employees designated to stay abreast of changes. If your regulatory authority has implemented requirements that trainings must be approved in advance, know that as well, and keep your Continuous Cannabis Education Program up-to-date and ready for inspection.

Ask The Expert: Exploring Cannabis Laboratory Accreditation Part 4

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

In the first part of this series, we spoke with Michelle Bradac, senior accreditation officer at A2LA, to learn the basics of cannabis laboratory accreditation. In the second part, we sat down with Roger Brauninger, A2LA Biosafety Program manager, to learn why states are looking to lab accreditation in their regulations for the cannabis industry. In the third part, we heard from Michael DeGregorio, chief executive officer of Konocti Analytics, Inc., discussing method development in the cannabis testing industry and his experience with getting accredited.

In the fourth and final part of this series, we sit down with Susan Audino, Ph.D., an A2LA lead assessor and instructor, laboratory consultant and board member for the Center for Research on Environmental Medicine in Maryland. Dr. Audino will share some insights into method validation and the most technical aspects of laboratory accreditation.

Susan Audino, Ph.D.

Susan Audino obtained her Ph.D. in Chemistry with an analytical chemistry major, physical and biochemistry minor areas. She currently owns and operates a consulting firm to service chemical and biological laboratories. Susan has been studying the chemistry and applications of cannabinoids and provides scientific and technical guidance to cannabis dispensaries, testing laboratories and medical personnel. Dr. Audino’s interest most directly involves cannabis consumer safety and protection, and promotes active research towards the development of official test methods specifically for the cannabis industry, and to advocate appropriate clinical research. In addition to serving on Expert Review Panels, she is also chairing the first Cannabis Advisory Panel and working group with AOAC International, is a member of the Executive Committee of the ASTM Cannabis Section and has consulted to numerous cannabis laboratories and state regulatory bodies.

CannabisIndustryJournal: What are the some of the most significant technical issues facing an accreditation body when assessing a cannabis-testing laboratory?

Susan: From the AB perspective, there needs to be a high level of expertise to evaluate the merits and scientific soundness of laboratory-developed analytical test methods. Because there are presently no standard or consensus test methods available, laboratories are required to develop their own methods, which need to be valid. Validating methods require a rigorous series of tests and statistical analyses to ensure the correctness and reliability of the laboratory’s product, which is– the test report.

CIJ: When is method validation required and how does this differ from system suitability?

Susan: Method validation is required whenever the laboratory modifies a currently accepted consensus or standard test method, or when the laboratory develops its own method. Method validation is characterized by a series of analytical performance criteria including determinations of accuracy, precision, linearity, specification, limit of detection, and limit of quantitation. The determination of system suitability requires a series of deliberate variations of parameters to ensure the complete system, that is all instrument(s) as well as the analytical method, is maintained throughout the entire analytical process. Traditionally, method validation has been referred to as “ruggedness” and system suitability as “robustness.”

CIJ: What are the most important aspects of method validation that must be taken into account? 

Susan: In keeping with the FDA guidelines and other accepted criteria, I tend to recommend the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH), particularly Q 2A, which is a widely recognized program that discusses the pertinent characteristics of method validation. This include: method specification, linearity, range, accuracy, and precision (e.g., repeatability, intermediate precision, reproducibility). As mentioned earlier, system suitability is also a critical element and although related to method validation, does require its own protocol.

CIJ: What three areas do you see the laboratory having the hardest time with in preparing for accreditation? 

Susan: My responses to this question assume the laboratory employs appropriate instruments to perform the necessary analyses, and that the laboratory employs personnel with experience and knowledge appropriate to develop test methods and interpret test results.

  • By and large, method validation that is not appropriate to the scope of their intended work. Driving this is an overall lack of information about method validation. Oftentimes there is an assumption that multiple recoveries of CRMs constitute “validation”. While it may be one element, this only demonstrates the instrument’s suitability. My recommendation is to utilize any one of a number of good single laboratory validation protocols. Options include, but are not limited to AOAC International, American Chemical Society, ASTM, and ICH protocols.
  • Second is the lack of statistically sound sampling protocols for those laboratories that are mandated by their governing states to go to the field to sample the product from required batches. Sampling protocols needs to address the heterogeneity of the plant, defining the batch, and determining/collecting a sample of sufficient quantity that will be both large enough and representative of the population, and to provide the laboratory an adequate amount from which to sub-sample.
  • Third, sample preparation. This is somewhat intertwined with my previous point. Once an appropriate sample has been collected, preparation must be relevant to the appropriate technology and assay. It is unlikely that a laboratory can perform a single preparation that is amenable to comprehensive testing.

Greenhouse Ventures, Thomas Jefferson University’s Lambert Center Launch Education Series

By Aaron G. Biros
No Comments

Greenhouse Ventures, a startup accelerator for ancillary businesses in the cannabis space, announced today the launch of a series of educational events throughout Pennsylvania, partnering with The Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp at Thomas Jefferson University. According to the press release, the series of talks will be focused on Pennsylvania’s legislation regarding medical cannabis.

“The PA Medicinal Cannabis Education Tour seeks to rectify the current lack of education on medicinal cannabis by providing current, reliable information on medicinal marijuana and its uses,” reads the press release. The events come at an opportune time: Pennsylvania recently announced qualifying permit applications for growers and dispensaries. As the state moves forward with their plan to fully implement a medical cannabis program by 2018, those looking to learn more about the regulations can attend these talks throughout the state.

The PA Medicinal Cannabis Education Tour will make stops in six cities, one for each of the regions set by the Department of Health: Tuesday, July 25th in Philadelphia; Wednesday, July 26th in Allentown; Tuesday, August 1st in Pittsburgh; Wednesday, August 2nd in Erie; Tuesday, September 26th in Harrisburg and Wednesday, September 27th in State College. The educational content is developed by the Lambert Center at Thomas Jefferson, the only such program dedicated to cannabinoid therapy. “These programs will educate healthcare professionals on the basic science underlying the pharmacologic and therapeutic options associated with medical cannabis in patient care, clinical insights on the use of medicinal cannabis, and provide information on legislative measures of Pennsylvania state law on the use, recommendation and dispensing of medical marijuana for medical conditions,” reads the press release.

Charles V. Pollack, Jr., MD, director of the Lambert Center

Last year, The Lambert Center hosted an accredited CME course as part of Greenhouse Ventures’ industry conference, Innovation in the Cannabis Industry: Future Outlook. “The Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp at Thomas Jefferson University is proud to support and participate in the PA Medicinal Cannabis Education Tour,” says Charles V. Pollack, Jr., MD, director of the Lambert Center. “The Lambert Center is the only comprehensive academic resource for education, research, and practice for the therapeutic use of cannabinoids to be based in a US health sciences university. We view the PA Tour as an essential education piece to prepare Pennsylvania doctors and assist in a smooth rollout of Pennsylvania’s Medical Cannabis industry.”

Sara Jane Ward, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Center for Substance Abuse and Research at the Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University and one of the course instructors on the education tour. She says a large part of the event series is to settle old misconceptions about cannabis. “There are a lot of misconceptions and misunderstandings on cannabis as a medicine in the medical community, because historically medical students are not taught about cannabis and the endocannabinoid system,” says Ward. “I’m looking forward to working with Greenhouse Ventures and The Lambert Center for the Study of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp, to educate healthcare professionals across Pennsylvania on the health benefits of cannabis.”

“A common setback for states that are implementing medical cannabis regulations is the lack of interest and sign ups from doctors and patients,” says Kevin Provost, executive officer of Greenhouse Ventures. “With reputable medical institutions like Thomas Jefferson University providing entry level education on medicinal cannabis and the endocannabinoid system, hopefully healthcare professionals across the state will realize this is real medicine, that can bring significant medical benefits to thousands of patients, and that now is the time for them to learn, before the industry is open in Pennsylvania.”

The first event in the educational series will be in Center City, Philadelphia on Tuesday, July 25th in the Bluemle Life Sciences Building at Thomas Jefferson University.