Evaluating clinical pharmacy services on a surgical patient-care area: a nurses' satisfaction survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine nurses' perceptions and expectations of clinical pharmacists prior to, and 9 months after, clinical pharmacy services were introduced on two general and gastrointestinal surgery hospital wards in Canada. METHODS: A survey tool was developed based on previous research, validated to ensure reliability and accuracy, and administered to approximately 70 nurses on the surgery wards. KEY FINDINGS: Response rates for the pre and post surveys were 75% and 67% respectively. Nurses indicated that the quality of pharmacy service improved significantly from pre to post survey (85% versus 95%; P < 0.0001). There was a statistically significant increase in positive responses to seven out of eight statements such as accessibility of pharmacists, timely responses to drug-related questions, and timely delivery of unit doses and intravenous admixtures. Almost all statements about nursing staff expectations showed increases in agreement. At least 85% of nurses indicated their expectations had been met or exceeded for all but one clinical pharmacy service. A higher proportion of nurses in the post survey felt that clinical pharmacists positively impact on their roles and responsibilities as a nurse. Comments from nurses indicated enthusiastic support for clinical pharmacy services. CONCLUSIONS: A survey tool to assess the quality of pharmacy services in the hospital setting has been developed, validated, and distributed. A high level of nurses' satisfaction with the provision of new clinical pharmacy services on general surgery/gastrointestinal surgery wards was demonstrated. Nursing staff were more aware of the responsibilities of clinical pharmacists and how the clinical pharmacist role could assist them in their own nursing practice. The survey may be useful for other wards and other institutions to measure satisfaction with pharmacy services.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".