A Pilot Study of Hospital Pharmacists’ Preferences for Practice Support
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION Of the approximately 9000 pharmacists registered with the Ontario College of Pharmacists, almost 1300 (about 14%) practise in the hospital setting (Connie Campbell, Ontario College of Pharmacists, personal communication, June 4, 2001). In many hospitals, the role of the pharmacist has evolved from a purely distributive one to that of being an active member of the health care team. The 1997/98 annual report of hospital pharmacy in Canada, produced by the CSHP,1 noted that the involvement of pharmacists in clinical services had been increasing steadily since at least 1991/92. In fact, the number of pharmacists participating in clinical activities increased by amounts ranging from 29% to 90% over the period from 1991/92 to 1997/98. As well, the number of therapeutic interventions by hospital pharmacists increased by 92% from 1992/93.1 The CSHP guidelines with regard to pharmacist education and staff development2 are general in scope. They state that “All staff involved in pharmacy services shall be provided with educational and staff development programs including orientation, inservice education, and continuing education programs, based on a needs assessment.” As well, “Pharmacy staff shall be encouraged to attend meetings or seminars relevant to the function of the department or their particular service. Financial support and/or time in lieu should be provided by the institution where possible.”2 The annual report of the CSHP for 1997/98 listed as one of its “vision objectives” to “Provide support to members in their Direct Patient Care role through education, skills development and practice tools”.3 Clearly, continuing education and practice support and tools are viewed as important by CSHP. Indeed, given the constantly evolving role of hospital pharmacists, it is no surprise that education and tools would be in demand. For a literature search conducted on PUBMED in June 1999 and updated in December 2000, Canada, hospital, and pharmacy were used as the first 3 search terms, and several hundred records were found. However, when the terms continuing education, needs assessment, professional programming, and professional tools were added, only 5 records were retrieved.4-8 Only one of the papers reported a needs assessment, and it focussed specifically on drug information services.7 Thus, it seems that little recent research has been published on the needs and wants of Canadian hospital pharmacists with regard to continuing education, professional programming, or professional tools. Some work has been done to describe the preferences and use of continuing education programs by Atlantic pharmacy practitioners, based on the Atlantic Continuing Pharmacy Education Survey (unpublished work, D.K. Yung, College of Pharmacy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, November 1995). The Ontario College of Pharmacists has also conducted a survey of the selfperceived continuing education needs and learning experiences of pharmacists in that province.9
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».