Indicateurs et pratique pharmaceutique : Le point de vue des cinq centres hospitaliers universitaires du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Introduction : L’objectif de cet article est de decrire un processus d’echanges et d’analyse consensuelle entre chefs de departement afin d’etablir les indicateurs d’activites pertinents pour la pratique pharmaceutique en etablissement de sante. Description de la problematique : Bien qu’il existe des normes canadiennes encadrant la description de la charge de travail en pharmacie, elles n’ont jamais ete utilisees en etablissement de sante au Quebec. Il n’existe pas d’indicateurs d’activites pharmaceutiques reconnus et largement utilises au Quebec. Resolution de la problematique : Dans le cadre des travaux de la table des chefs de departement de pharmacie des centres hospitaliers universitaires (CHU) quebecois, les cinq chefs ont ete invites a determiner, a partir de leur expertise et de la description des activites realisees au sein de leur etablissement au cours des cinq dernieres annees, des indicateurs pertinents pour la description de la pratique pharmaceutique. La technique utilisee s’inspire de la technique de Delphi. Au total, 69 indicateurs ont ete determines lors des deux seances de remue-meninges. Ils ont ete regroupes selon les cinq axes de la pratique pharmaceutique en etablissement de sante, soit les services pharmaceutiques, les soins pharmaceutiques, l’enseignement et la formation, la recherche et la gestion. Nous observons une grande variabilite quant a l’utilisation de ces indicateurs au sein des cinq CHU. Les chefs considerent qu’il est tres facile de decrire 45 de ces indicateurs. De meme, ils estiment que 44 des indicateurs proposes peuvent etre utiles pour decrire la performance de leur departement. Conclusion : Il existe peu de donnees sur la mesure de la charge de travail en pharmacie. La pratique de la pharmacie hospitaliere est variee, complexe et en evolution. Cet article decrit un processus d’echanges et d’analyse de cinq chefs de departement de pharmacie ayant permis l’etablissement et l’evaluation de 69 indicateurs d’activites pharmaceutiques. Abstract Introduction: The purpose of this article is to describe a consensus process of discussion and analysis among department heads in order to establish relevant activity indicators for pharmaceutical practice in health care establishments. Description of the problem: Even though there are existing Canadian standards that provide a framework for the description of a pharmacy workload, they have never been used in Quebec health care establishments. In Quebec, there are no recognized or widely used indicators for pharmaceutical activities. Problem resolution: In the context of their consultation committee work, the five pharmacy department heads of the Quebec university hospital centres were asked to determine the relevant indicators for describing pharmaceutical practice, drawing on their expertise and a description of activities carried out in their establishments over the last five years. The technique used was modeled on the Delphi method. In all, 69 indicators were identified during two brainstorming sessions. The indicators were then grouped according to the five areas of pharmaceutical practice in health care establishments—that is, pharmaceutical services, pharmaceutical care, teaching and training, research, and management. A considerable variation was observed in the use of indicators in the five university hospital centres. Department heads considered it quite easy to describe 45 of these indicators. As well, they thought that 44 of the suggested indicators could be useful in describing the performance of their department. Conclusion: There is little data on measuring pharmacy workload. The practice of hospital pharmacy is varied, complex, and constantly changing. This article describes a process of discussion and analysis undertaken by five pharmacy department heads in order to establish and evaluate 69 pharmaceutical activity indicators. Key words: workload; checklist; activity indicators; hospital pharmacy
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".