MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2044770569 · doi:10.1177/1715163513507525

On becoming a new pharmacist

2013· article· en· W2044770569 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ross T. Tsuyuki

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
ThématiquePharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPharmacistMedicineNursingPharmacy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Last issue, I introduced you to 3 recent pharmacy graduates who we’ll be following through the ups and downs of becoming new pharmacists. As you’ll recall, all 3 were hired specifically to provide patient-centred care rather than the traditional product-focused (distribution) role. Let’s check in with them a few months into their new jobs. Reid McDonald and Anita Cumbleton have settled into their positions at Fyfe’s Friendly Pharmacy in Barrhead, Alberta. They report that things have been going well. They’ve been busy performing 3 to 5 medication reviews every day. Relationships with the local physicians have been very good, although not all support what they are doing. Their main challenge has been that patients seem unaware of what their pharmacists can do for them. Sometimes patients say “my physician can do that” and dismiss their offer of a medication review. Anita and Reid have changed their approach to patients by making the medication reviews less formal, starting to engage patients more casually by asking them a few questions about their medications. When patients realize how little they know about their medications, it seems to lead them to want to talk more. Another thing that seems to work is to start engaging them while they are waiting for their prescription (rather than after it’s ready). Bryan Gray has been aggressively pursuing MedsCheck reviews for his patients as well at Shoppers Drug Mart in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Early on he had a disturbing experience. He conducted a review for a 75-year-old patient who had been receiving hormone replacement therapy for 20 years. She had not had any menopausal symptoms in over 10 years, and they discussed breast cancer risk. Bryan wrote a letter to her gynecologist, citing the evidence for increased risk of breast cancer. The physician sent back his letter with the following comments: “Please mind your own business” and “PS, You are also poorly informed. There [have been] follow-up studies since the WHI [Women’s Health Initiative].” Bryan was alerted to this response by his boss, who expressed concern that he had “pissed off Dr. X” and that they’d better talk. Not surprisingly, Bryan’s first reaction was that of anger at the unprofessionalism of the physician. He thought of going to his office and confronting him. He also had second thoughts about his decision to intervene in this case. In the end, he explains, “If this was my mother or grandmother, I wouldn’t let this slide, therefore I can’t let it slide for my patients.” Indeed, patient care trumps all. Bryan has changed his approach. He is no longer “cold faxing” but rather phoning the physician first. He reports that this tactic has worked well. Some physicians are very appreciative, while others seem taken aback that he is calling, but are still okay. As you might expect, our new pharmacists have received a good “loading dose” of reality. What impresses me is that despite some barriers, they have shown us that persistence towards the goal of advocating for their patients is more important than their own pride or feelings. Rather than recoiling from the challenges, they are sharpening their resolve. They are learning new tactics to apply their care, and we shall continue to follow along, learning from them (and cheering them on). ■

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)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,021
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 enseignants0,187
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,626

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,021
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,003
Communication savante0,0110,010
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0110,017
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1870,087

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 Opus0,422
Tête enseignante GPT0,482
Écart entre enseignants0,060 · 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

Citations1
Publié2013
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada→Même sujetPharmaceutical industry and healthcare→Travaux en français237 207→