Unpacking the value of pharmacists in team-based primary care in British Columbia, Canada: a qualitative evaluation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The pharmacy profession has been continuously evolving, redefining pharmacists' scope of practice within various practice settings to meet the ongoing societal needs, demands and patient expectations. Pharmacists are increasingly becoming part of primary care teams in countries such as Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. In British Columbia, Canada, primary care clinical pharmacists (PCCPs) were incorporated into developing primary care networks (PCNs) over a three-year period. Our project aimed to gain insight into how the role of PCCPs is perceived by their interprofessional team (IPT) members in addition to how the pharmacists themselves view their contribution to team-based primary care. METHODS: This project was conducted as part of the evaluation of the Pharmacists in PCN Program and was informed by Qualitative Description methodology. Data was collected at two time points during program implementation. Participants included program team members, PCCPs and PCN members (administrators, IPT members, and prescribers) who were invited via e-mail to participant in virtual individual interviews and focus groups. RESULTS: Prescribers and PCN IPT members felt supported when collaborating with PCCPs for the shared care of mutual patients. Additionally, PCCPs believed that team members valued their role. There was a recognized need for PCCPs to be co-located in clinics as efficient, reliable, and accessible team members owing to their role in medication management, offering patient-centred recommendations and follow-up care plans to optimize medication regimens, providing patient education which empowers patients to advocate for their health needs, prioritizing patient autonomy, decreasing the amount of time prescribers and IPT members spend on complex patients, and supporting patients who do not have immediate access to a family physician. CONCLUSION: Perceptions of the PCCP's contribution to IPTs were overwhelmingly positive. The PCCP's specific role in addressing aspects of patient care that other health care providers may overlook, and their possession of knowledge, expertise, and skills which fall outside other team members' scope of work has led to their recognition as an essential team member. However, more research is needed to look beyond the pharmacist's impact on providing longitudinal medication management, as perceived by all members of the primary care team.
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 | 0,023 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,021 | 0,009 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».