Change management in pharmacy: a simulation game and pharmacy leaders’ rating of 35 barriers to change†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to rank barriers to change in pharmacy practice. Our secondary objective was to create a simulation game to stimulate reflection and discussion on the topic of change management. METHODS: The game was created by the authors and used during a symposium attended by 43 hospital pharmacy leaders from all regions of Canada (Millcroft Conference, Alton, Ontario, June 2013). The main theme of the conference was 'managing change'. KEY FINDINGS: The simulation game, the rating of 35 barriers to change and the discussion that followed provided an opportunity for hospital pharmacy leaders to reflect on potential barriers to change, and how change might be facilitated through the use of an organized approach to change, such as that described in Kotter's eight-step model. CONCLUSIONS: This simulation game, and the associated rating of barriers to change, provided an opportunity for a group of hospital pharmacy leaders in Canada to reflect on the challenges associated with managing change in the healthcare setting. This simulation game can be modified and used by pharmacy practitioners in other countries to help identify and rank barriers to change in their particular pharmacy practice setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".