Training and credentialing of best possible medication history pharmacy technicians: a survey of early‐adopting Australian health services

Advanced practice scope for pharmacy technicians includes conducting best possible medication histories (BPMHs), which reduce medication errors. In the absence of national training programs for Australian BPMH technicians, early adopting health services have developed local programs. Understanding of these local programs and the time investment required to implement them remains limited. This study aimed to characterise training design, delivery and credentialing approaches for BPMH technicians across Australian health services. A cross‐sectional survey of Australian health services utilising BPMH technicians was conducted in 2025 using purposive and snowball sampling. A 21‐item questionnaire explored training and competency processes, including the time required to develop, deliver, complete and assess learners. The questionnaire was disseminated in professional discussion forums. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Eleven health services responded. Training was predominantly delivered by pharmacists and relied on locally developed materials. Training methods included shadowing ( n = 11, 100%), self‐directed reading materials ( n = 9, 81.8%) and simulation ( n = 6, 54.5%). The median time for learners to complete training was 46 h (interquartile range [IQR] 10–154), while credentialing commonly used Entrustable Professional Activities ( n = 9, 81.8%), with a median completion time of 120 h (IQR 30–200). Post‐credentialing pharmacist oversight varied, with some health services requiring independent review or co‐signing of technician BPMHs. Locally developed training and credentialing approaches for BPMH technicians are structurally similar but vary widely in duration. This presents an opportunity for a national Australian framework for BPMH technicians to reduce individual health services' time investment and address variability in training delivery. Ethics approval was granted by the University of Technology Sydney's Human Research Ethics Committee (reference no. ETH25‐10814) and the study conforms to the National statement on ethical conduct in human research . Informed consent was obtained from all participants via distribution of project information indicating participation was voluntary and anonymous. Participants indicated their consent by completion of the questionnaire.