Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As you provide pharmaceutical care to your patients, you intervene to alter the drug therapy of individual patients to give them the greatest opportunity of achieving the desired therapeutic goal. This represents a great service to your patients, and thousands of Canadians across the country benefit from pharmacists’ involvement in their care. However, many of the problems requiring intervention from pharmacists occur over and over again. For example, you have probably intervened many times to have the dose of a medication altered because of impaired or improved drug clearance, such as occurs with changes in renal function. Similarly, recent interest in medica tion reconciliation reflects a recognition that interventions to address inappropriate drug therapy have been frequently required at points of transfer in care. The challenge to all care providers, including pharmacists, is to recognize situations in which drug therapy is repeatedly suboptimal and to initiate processes so that future patients will not have the same experi ence. With this in mind, are you recognizing the contributory factors to suboptimal care, and are you doing something about these problems? In this issue of the CJHP , Louie and others 1 describe a specific practice environment in Canadian hospitals where, they suggest, pharmacists and other care providers are not adequately organized to systematically document medication errors, evaluate the causes of the errors, and prevent subsequent problems with drug therapy. These investigators selected the intensive care unit setting for examination because of the critical nature of patients’ conditions, the major contribution of drug therapy to patients’ outcomes, and the potential for deleterious consequences with drug misadventures. Yet their findings could be extrapolated to many other practice environments where pharmacists are significant contributors to care. Louie and others were looking for structured methods of reporting, evaluating, and responding to medication errors, but I am sure that their examination could be expanded to investigate all types of drug-related problems. I am not suggesting that every intervention by a pharmacist is in response to a medication error, but I think the authors’ inquiry into why pharmacists’ interventions are not used as a method for tracking sub optimal care has validity. How often have you stopped to ask yourself, “Why do I need to perform this intervention?” rather than just going ahead with the intervention? I suspect that only infrequently do you investi gate the causes of a recurring drug-related problem and that much more frequently you just intervene. By doing so, are we pharmacists not simply allowing the same thing to happen again in the future? Are we not too easily accepting the status quo as the way it has to be? The challenge to us all, whatever our practice environ
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 | 0,008 | 0,048 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,013 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,015 | 0,024 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,123 | 0,108 |
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 ».