An Evaluation of Teaching Physical Examination to Pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evolving scope of practice has led pharmacists to develop new skills traditionally performed by other members of the health care team, including physical examination (PE). A session to teach PE skills to pharmacists was created as part of a professional development program. The purpose of this study was to evaluate participants' perception of, barriers to and confidence in performing PE before and after the session. METHODS: A 2-hour session introduced participants to PE as part of a primary care professional development program. Surveys were administered before and after the session, and then 4 weeks later. Participants' confidence in performing PE was assessed using a 4-point unipolar scale questionnaire, and mean weighted responses were compared between the pre- and post-session surveys. RESULTS: Thirty-four pharmacists participated in the study. At baseline, 82.4% had never received formal PE education, but 38.2% performed PE in practice, including blood pressure measurement. Eighty-two percent of participants identified barriers to performing PE, the most common being lack of formal training. Participants' confidence with PE significantly increased between the pre- and post-session surveys, except for comfort with making drug therapy interventions based on PE findings. Forty-three percent of participants completed the 4-week follow-up survey, which demonstrated that the use of PE in practice remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Prior to the session, most participants did not use PE in their practice, primarily due to a lack of formal training. The session significantly improved participants' confidence in PE, but this did not translate into short-term practice change.
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 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".