Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The possible development and implementation of entry-level doctor of pharmacy programs (also known as “entry-level PharmD” or ELPD programs) within Canada’s academic institutions is being vigorously debated. While some think that this shift is inevitable, others are more cautious. The mandate of our pharmacy educational institutions is to provide a high-quality education that produces graduates who can meet the pharmacy-related health care needs of patients. Our current programs do produce excellent graduates, yet we are being asked to make changes in our curricula that would allow graduates to take on a greater role in direct patient care. At a recent symposium, Canadian pharmacy leaders agreed that some modification of the current university curricula should occur. Interestingly, some participants indicated that perhaps the educational changes necessary would lead to a master’s degree. However, others emphasized that the doctor of pharmacy degree has already been established, and introducing another designation for the degree might further cloud the issue. 1 With the introduction of family health care teams, the increasing use of technology, changes in demographics, and the development of patient safety initiatives, pharmacists will be more responsible for patient care as integrated members of the health care team and will be more accountable for drug outcomes, but our current curricula (1 year of arts and sciences courses and 4 years of pharmacy) are confining and may inhibit pharmacists from meeting these increased expectations. A number of important basic science courses that our students are offered need to become prerequisites to allow the flexibility for the anticipated changes in pharmacy practice. This could mean that students would take 2 years of arts and science courses before entering the pharmacy program. However, such a change in the program would not decrease the number of graduates or the time to completion of a degree. Rather, students would enter pharmacy after receiving more basic science training, similar to what happens in dentistry and medicine. At the same time it would be prudent to develop programs allowing practitioners to upgrade if they so wished and to continue to offer programs for specialty training (such as fellowships and residencies). Do all pharmacy students need to undertake an ELPD program? Probably not, at least not in the near future. However, the option should be available, given that we are educating students to work in a global environment. If we don’t start offering this type of program, whether we agree or disagree with this educational approach, our graduates will have difficulty practising in other parts of the world, as our accreditation standards will not be recognized. Canada may be better served by admitting a small number of students into ELPD programs while still maintaining the bachelor-level programs, an approach that would give us the opportunity to monitor the success of newly trained graduates, their capabilities as “change agents”, and their ability to meet future challenges. In the United States, new standards for accreditation for ELPD programs came into effect on July 1, 2000, and schools had until June 30, 2005, to comply with the new standards. Although many wonder
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 | 0,032 | 0,066 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,030 | 0,016 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,022 | 0,027 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,025 | 0,002 |
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 ».