Pharmacy Students Leading Pharmacy Practice Change
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective:To develop an interview tool for students to help assess a potential employer's willingness to allow new employees to practice patient-centred care and thereby allow the student to make better-informed employment decisions. Methods:We developed an interview tool by asking leading pharmacists what requests they would make to facilitate a high level of patient-centred care if they were applying for a new job. Responses to this question were compiled until saturation was apparent. The requests were ranked by frequency and the level of importance described by the interviewed pharmacists and used to develop a list of supports found to be critical in delivering a high level of patient-centred care. The interview tool was then designed to move the student from open-ended questions about patient-centred care to specifically asking the interviewer to address supports for patient-centred care. The interview tool also provided students with important definitions, suggested phrasing for questions, and room for individualized questions. An accompanying interview guide for students was developed based upon previous work by CAPSI. The guide included background information about the current state of pharmacy practice, interviewing resources, an extensive list of interview questions and the interview tool with instructions for its use. The materials were printed and posted on the websites of CAPSI (www.capsi.ca/compris.php) and COMPRIS (www.epicore.ualberta.ca/compris/PharmacyGuide.html). Hard copies were distributed through CAPSI representatives at each Canadian school of pharmacy in September 2007 and at CAPSI's 2008 Professional Development Week. Our next steps include:•Translation into French•Distribution of hard copies to first-year students in September 2008•Display booth at Professional Development Week 2009•Updating the tool and guide based on comments received from students Conclusion:Students will help to make pharmacy practice more patient-centred by asking critical questions, negotiating for patient care supports, and ultimately influencing the manner in which they are recruited. Evaluation of the program is ongoing. Feedback from students has been exceptional: “Overall, I believe the employers were caught off guard by the tool's questions and the shift of focus to them, their fit for me. I had confidence in the tool and in the market strength for pharmacists.” “It changed the interview; instead of me having to impress them, it was they who were trying to impress me. I totally felt like I was in the driver's seat and came out of that interview knowing I'd nailed it.” “By using the questions outlined in the tool, I negotiated with a pharmacy manager until he redefined a position that was focused on dispensing to one with a clinical focus.”
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 | 0,007 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,034 | 0,008 |
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 ».