Integrating pharmacists into primary care teams: barriers and facilitators
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the barriers and facilitators that were experienced as pharmacists were integrated into 23 existing primary care teams located in urban and rural communities in Saskatchewan, Canada. METHODS: Qualitative design using data from one-on-one telephone interviews with pharmacists, physicians and nurse practitioners from the 23 teams that integrated a new pharmacist role. Four researchers from varied backgrounds used thematic analysis of the interview transcripts to determine key themes. The research team met on multiple occasions to agree on the key themes and received written feedback from an external auditor and two of the original interviewees. KEY FINDINGS: Seven key themes emerged describing the barriers and facilitators that the teams experienced during the pharmacist integration: (1) relationships, trust and respect; (2) pharmacist role definition; (3) orientation and support; (4) pharmacist personality and professional experience; (5) pharmacist presence and visibility; (6) resources and funding; and (7) value of the pharmacist role. Teams from urban and rural communities experienced some of these challenges in unique ways. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care teams that integrated a pharmacist experienced several common barriers and facilitators. The negative impact of these barriers can be mitigated with effective planning and support that is individualized for the type of community where the team is located.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it