MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2329090229 · doi:10.1177/1715163515571534

2015

2015· article· fr· W2329090229 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jeff Morrison

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2015
Typearticle
Languefr
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealthcare Systems and Practices
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

As we reach the mid-point of the decade, it’s an apt time to step back and review the state of pharmacy in Canada. There’s no question that we’ve witnessed a significant level of change in the profession in the past decade; many people call it historic. But with any significant change come both challenges and opportunities. Although the profession of pharmacy is continuing to evolve, the purpose of these comments is to provide a high-level “State of Pharmacy” overview to gauge where pharmacy stands as we enter 2015. Scope of service has expanded: When we compare the list of pharmacist-provided services today compared with 5 or 10 years ago, there is no question that the scope of pharmacists’ services has expanded dramatically. Governments have unquestionably embraced the concept that pharmacists can alleviate pressure on the health care system by shifting greater and greater responsibilities to the pharmacy sector. Although it’s true that there remains room for growth in some jurisdictions, it’s equally true that the trend lines have all moved in the same direction—a trend that most pharmacists would agree is positive. This also explains the rise in pharmacy technicians, a profession that has been coming into its own over the past several years. Compensation models are witnessing significant reforms: Whereas there has been significant progress regarding increased responsibilities for pharmacists, there is still a long way to go in recognizing the need for compensation reform. Over the past few years, in the face of generic drug price reductions, elimination of allowances in some jurisdictions, inappropriate (or in some cases, complete lack of) compensation for provision of new services and dispensing fees in most provinces that are not properly indexed, most pharmacists would agree that the pharmacy compensation model is in need of an overhaul. The pharmacy compensation models of just 10 years ago are not meeting the needs of the profession today. However, given the pressures that provincial budgets are facing, especially in the face of lower oil prices, it may be difficult to rely on provincial governments to address this issue, at least in the short term. Use of technology is growing, but not quickly enough: As demonstrated by the October 2014 Canada Health Infoway/CPhA survey “The National Survey of Canadian Community Pharmacists: Use of Digital Health Technologies in Practice,” the use and acceptance of technology in pharmacy is increasing, and technology is leading to productivity gains. However, the report also made clear that there remains a long road ahead before pharmacy in Canada can claim to have embraced the full benefits of technology. Electronic Drug Information Systems, e-health records and even social media are all areas where pharmacy has not kept up with other economic sectors. Private payers are understanding pharmacy better: Third-party payers are often overlooked as a key pharmacy stakeholder. However, they pay for roughly half of prescriptions in Canada and, as such, play an important role in the administration of pharmacy benefits. Increasingly, private payers are also being asked to cover the costs associated with services that pharmacists provide that are not covered by public plans. Compared with a few years ago, there is a deeper dialogue today between private payers and pharmacy in terms of the many facets of that complex relationship. In addition, I believe we are on the cusp of an increase in the number of privately administered plans that will cover pharmacy services; although it is still early days, private payer coverage may be a growth area for pharmacy. Of course, other commentators may have different ideas about the bigger issues affecting the state of pharmacy. But perhaps the key trend is that pharmacy is moving beyond seeking expanded responsibilities to a point where it needs to determine how to best manage the new responsibilities, what tools are required and how to be appropriately compensated. Pharmacy may also need to look at new and expanded quality assurance programs in the provision of these services. There is no question that these remain daunting goals; however, in historical context, it’s important to keep in mind how far pharmacists have come in such a short period of time. While challenges remain, there has been a great deal of positive evolution in pharmacy over the past decade.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,605
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,000
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,001

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 Opus0,245
Tête enseignante GPT0,458
Écart entre enseignants0,213 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

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
Publié2015
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaMême sujetHealthcare Systems and PracticesTravaux en français237 207