Canadian Pharmacy Practice Residencies: A Learning Needs Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background: The residency program in hospital pharmacy practice (also known as the pharmacy practice residency) is currently the only accredited pharmacy residency program in Canada. Every 4 years the Canadian Hospital Pharmacy Residency Board (CHPRB) reviews the accreditation standards for the program to ensure that they reflect changes in the profession. However, the CHPRB has never formally received input from past graduates to determine if the program is meeting residents’ needs. Objective: To conduct a learning needs assessment of the pharmacy practice residency from the perspective of recent pharmacy residents, to determine if this program is meeting their needs. Methods: A 57-item survey was mailed to the 162 graduates who completed a pharmacy practice residency between 1998 and 2000. The questions were based on the 1998 standards set by CHPRB for the pharmacy practice residency and addressed the focus and various components of this program. Results: A total of 137 surveys were returned (84.6% response rate). The results indicated that, in general, the learning needs of past residents were met by the residency program. However, residents identified teaching skills as an area they wished to develop. Other suggestions for improvement included increased consistency among preceptors, clearer guidelines for the residency project, and reorganization of time spent in the program, with an increased number of clinical rotations and less time in drug distribution. Barriers to applying for a residency included poor salary and the perception that residents are treated poorly in some institutions. Conclusions: On the basis of the survey results, recommendations to improve the pharmacy practice residency are suggested for 9 aspects of the program. RESUME Historique : Le programme de residence en pratique pharmaceutique hospitaliere (aussi connu sous le nom de residence en pratique pharmaceutique) est actuellement le seul programme de residence en pharmacie qui est agree au Canada. Tous les quatre ans, le Conseil canadien de residence en pharmacie d’hopital (CCRPH) revise les normes d’agrement du programme, pour s’assurer qu’il colle bien a la realite de la profession. En revanche, le CCRPH n’a jamais eu le point de vue officiel d’anciens residents, qui lui aurait permis de verifier si le programme repondait a leurs besoins. Objectif : Mener une etude pour evaluer si la residence en pratique pharmaceutique a repondu aux besoins d’apprentissage de pharmaciens frais emoulus du programme. Methodes : Un sondage comportant 57 questions a ete poste a 162 pharmaciens ayant acheve une residence en pratique pharmaceutique entre 1998 et 2000. Les questions etaient fondees sur les normes de la residence en pratique pharmaceutique etablies en 1998 par le CCRPH et s’articulaient autour du but et des divers autres aspects du programme. Resultats : Au total, 137 questionnaires ont ete retournes (taux de reponse de 84,6 %). Les resultats indiquent que, dans l’ensemble, le programme de residence a repondu aux besoins d’apprentissage des anciens residents. En revanche, les repondants ont signale qu’ils souhaitaient perfectionner leurs competences pedagogiques. Parmi les autres suggestions d’amelioration, on note le besoin de plus de coherence entre les precepteurs, de directives plus claires relativement au projet de residence et d’un reamenagement du temps consacre aux differentes activites, soit augmenter le nombre de stages cliniques et reduire les heures passees a la distribution des medicaments. Parmi les obstacles qui freinent les candidatures a la residence, on note le maigre salaire et la perception d’un manque de consideration pour les residents dans certains milieux. Conclusions : Les resultats du sondage ont permis de degager des recommandations pour ameliorer la residence en pratique pharmaceutique sous neuf aspects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".