Way Cool update! On 11 Feb 2021 IBLCE issued an Advisory Opinion clarifying the confusing guidance offered 6 months ago (described below). IBCLCs who offer education can now be assured that, common-sensibly, their offerings will earn CERPs so long as (1) the education isn’t funded by entities that violate the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes, and (2) if the educator does sell other stuff, that customary disclosure of potential conflict-of-interest is made, for full transparency. Read the Advisory Opinion.
Original blog 18 Aug 2020:
In its annual late-summer tradition, the International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners has issued a Briefing with dramatic implications for IBCLC practice. It dropped into emailboxes late on 17 Aug 2020; it is also on their website here.
The overall goal is to tighten requirements against ALL conflicts-of-interest (COI), including those involving the subset of products falling under the International Code.
But private practitioners and other educators who offer CERPs-awarding classes should sit up.
“Effective 2022, IBLCE will not accept ***any educational credits*** earned from that time forward for certification/recertification from companies whose products fall [under the Code, and also pumps, and also PhARMA, and] entrepreneurs who market breastfeeding and baby items such as nipple creams, baby slings, strollers, breastfeeding pillows or nursing stools.”
This is a restriction against those offering education for which CERPs approval is sought, in turn to be awarded to students. It is also a restriction for “lactation specific hours” needed to fulfill the requirements to sit the exam/recert. If someone is collecting non-CERP-hours in order to meet the requirements to take the exam (as is allowed), those hours cannot come from these “entrepreneurs.”
This is NOT a restriction against IBCLCs offering clinical hours, as a mentor, to students acquiring that other needed prerequisite for the exam.
And — take note please. All this enhanced activity springs from IBLCE embracing WHA Resolution 69.9, a broad and excellent anti-COI pronouncement. Yippee for that. But even 69.9 merely requires full disclosure of COI if it can’t be avoided or eliminated. IBLCE is going one step father: full disclosure of your retail operations to potential students will not be enough to cure the problem; CERPs will not be awarded by IBLCE. And if you don’t bother to seek CERPs approval as the educator, and just offer the teaching for plain old continuing ed credits, that learning won’t count for IBCLC-aspirants. Severely limiting the attractiveness of some excellent on-line education.
A lot of folks are now using the ease of Internet teaching platforms to offer all manner of excellent education. During the Time of COVID. When accessibility and affordability is so important. But if they also sell other products to families, they can’t provide CERPs for the education they also sell. (Though other education-awarding entities, like ANCC, can likely approve CNEs/CEs/CEUs.) Which means, realistically, that only the Old Guard long-term educators, who’ve had their businesses up-and-running since the late 1980s, and do not have to rely upon diversified retail offerings to stay afloat, will be able to continue providing CERP-earning classes alongside customary sources like professional association conferences and webinars.
But straight up mentors who offer clinical hours to those seeking to sit the exam should be OK … so long as they respect, generally, these tightened requirements by IBLCE against COI.
Y’all make sure not to miss the other elements dive-bombed onto us:
(1) “WHO Code **training** will be mandatory for all IBLCE Board and staff [good on that], ***IBCLCs recertifying as well as IBCLC candidates*** … in 2022.” TRAINING is a whole different thing than learning-up on the Code to answer the 5ish? 10ish? questions on the topic on the exam. Especially now that ICDC — which traditionally offered Code training — was shuttered in late 2019 due to lack of funds. We won’t know the specifics on this until IBLCE issues its 2022 guide for candidates certifying/recertifying.
(2) The Code of Professional Conduct is under review “to incorporate provisions of the [Intl] Code within the CPC in consultation with legal counsel …” WHOA. Y’all think they will declare the Intl Code is *back* under our mandatory ethics document? After ceremoniously pulling it out in 2011, citing legal rationales?
I’d tell us all to start offering on-line Code Training, but yikes make sure you aren’t selling anything else too!