MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1677194378 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v53i2.720

Are We Getting There

2000· article· en· W1677194378 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kelly Babcock

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPharmacySpecialtyPublic relationsAction (physics)Service (business)LegislatureThe InternetPharmacy practiceMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceNursingBusinessFamily medicineComputer scienceWorld Wide WebLawMarketing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We created over 30 detailed action plans to help us achieve Vision 2000, and in this article I will discuss what we have accomplished. Pharmacy Specialty Networks are up and running and continuing to grow in number and activities. Pharmacists in diverse practices are recognizing the importance of talking to others involved in similar specialties. We have continued efforts to upgrade all pharmacists in their ability to effectively assist their patients by running successful AGMs and Professional Practice Conferences, and, for those who can’t attend, making videotapes and considering CD-ROM and Internet processes for the provision of distance education. We also recognize the importance of reviewing our standards and looking at new roles in this ever-changing pharmacy profession. We expect to have announcements at this year’s AGM in Winnipeg about our new standards of practice and a statement on prescriptive authority for pharmacists. Forging partnerships has been of the utmost importance over the past few years, as we have tried to assist our patients through the continuum of care. We worked with the Canadian Pharmacists Association, provincial pharmacy associations and licensing bodies, nurses, and physicians to put on the highly successful Seamless Care Workshop, and the highlights of the proceedings were made available to all of our members. This event sparked even more activity across the country in this important patient-focussed care service. We continue to try to make more consistent the approach taken in providing seamless care and hope that it will be recognized as a standard of practice for pharmacists, one that patients will soon come to demand. We are also leading these groups and a few more, such as government, in developing a national system for reporting medication errors in Canada. In addition, we have started a task force on home health care. These initiatives definitely reach out and help our patients. Another partnership that is gaining momentum is our strategic alliance with APES (Association des pharmaciens des etablissements de sante du Quebec). We have developed an English version of one of their successful publications, concerning palliative care. Now pharmacists across Canada can benefit from the great work of our francophone specialists in this area to make a difference for their patients. Continuous work with our student partners through the Pharmaceutical Care Poster Competition of the Canadian Association of Pharmacy Students and Interns and CSHP, and with the residents through the nationally recognized Pharmacia & Upjohn Award will pay dividends as our future practitioners come aboard. We must also examine how our students will be trained in the future, and we are addressing this with our Entry-Level PharmD Task Force. The task force’s job will be to develop a position paper on what our members think of this approach, which is being considered by universities across Canada. I have highlighted here only some of our activities to demonstrate the focus of our activities on Vision 2000 and the progress we have made. As we work toward the AGM in Winnipeg we need to establish Vision 2003. We will again seek your input to the visioning process. A survey will be sent to about 20% of our members asking first how you feel we have progressed toward Vision 2000 and then what you think needs to be done to address your professional needs in 2003. Vision 2000 built on the progress of Vision ’97 and looked to the year 2000 for its development. I can assure members that we will take a similar approach to developing Vision 2003, because we all know that the advancement of the profession is gradual. In closing, I will highlight one more action plan arising from Vision 2000. CSHP is now voting on whether a name change for the Society is warranted. At this time, I want only to remind you that a vote by the membership will decide the issue. You will receive a “What’s in a Name?” fact sheet describing the pros and cons of a name change, based on the discussions we have had with our members over the past few years. In addition, you will receive clear instruction on how to participate in the mail-in balloting. Please consider this issue carefully and cast your vote. As is usual with CSHP, we are letting our members determine our actions, a strategy that I believe has resulted in the Society’s success.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,026
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,989
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,491

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0260,088
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0210,014
Communication savante0,0400,049
Science ouverte0,0040,024
Intégrité de la recherche0,0210,038
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1470,085

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,116
Tête enseignante GPT0,383
Écart entre enseignants0,267 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2000
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy→Même sujetPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→Travaux en français237 207→