Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The results of a 2010 survey of CPhA members revealed that one of the most highly valued roles for the CPhA to play was to represent the perspective of pharmacists to other health care professionals. This was an astute observation—pharmacy represents one piece of a very complex health care puzzle, and so strengthening relationships with Canada’s physicians, nurses, dentists, mental health workers and other practitioners is a key step towards improving real interdisciplinary care across Canada. The CPhA devotes a great deal of effort to engaging with other health care providers to provide pharmacists’ views on key health-related issues. Contacts with other health provider organizations have allowed the CPhA to build coalitions on key issues, strengthen and promote the role of the pharmacist and advocate more strongly with governments on the need for patient-centred care. Ongoing dialogue with the broader health community also helps provide valuable intelligence and information on developments of interest and concern to the pharmacy community. Although examples of engagement with other health care providers occur on a daily basis, here are some noteworthy instances of recent interdisciplinary efforts: Following decades of resistance to increasing scopes of practice for pharmacists, more recent statements by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) have promoted the idea of enabling allied health professionals such as pharmacists to practise to the full extent of their training and ability. As a leading member of HEAL, a coalition of 40 health provider organizations, discussions have already begun about positioning and messaging for the 2015 election, in an attempt to have the parties discuss relevant issues surrounding health care. Through its strong partnership with the Canadian Nurses Association (CNA), CMA and the Health Action Lobby (HEAL), the CPhA has been a contributor to the Council of the Federation’s effort to promote team-based models of care throughout Canada, with an eye to ensuring that models of care include pharmacists where warranted. There have been weekly discussions and updates between CPhA, CMA, CNA and HEAL representatives to update each other on the progress of the Council of the Federation and relevant developments. The Canadian Medical Association and CPhA will shortly issue a joint policy statement on the need for e-prescribing in Canada, which will speak to the benefits of and need for investment in e-prescribing. We also work with other health provider groups to advocate for greater progress on the implementation of electronic health records in Canada. The CPhA is a leading member of the G-7, a group of 7 allied health professional organizations that discuss issues relevant to our joint sectors. Recent discussions within the G-7 have helped inform efforts by pharmacy to advocate with third-party insurers for better coverage of pharmacy-related services. The CPhA led an effort among 8 national health provider organizations to oppose federal elimination of supplemental health benefits for refugees. These efforts helped restore supplemental benefits, including pharmacy benefits, to approximately one-third of refugees in Canada. Although not directly advocacy related, the therapeutic information provided to other medical practitioners via CPhA’s various publications and products (e.g., the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties, Therapeutic Choices and e-Therapeutics+) is an invaluable source of information for practitioners on evidence-based drug therapy. One important note is that our partners in other health organizations recognize the key role and contribution that pharmacists play in the health field. They recognize the accessibility, the relevance and the expertise that pharmacists bring to the health system, which is why the CPhA is called upon so frequently to discuss and participate in issues of relevance to the Canadian health care system. Although this is not an overly visible or celebrated function of the national association, it is a responsibility that the CPhA takes very seriously and will continue to prioritize in the years to come. ■
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 | 0,006 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,049 | 0,003 |
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 ».