MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982708523 · doi:10.3109/13561820903130149

Integration of a primary healthcare pharmacist

2010· article· en· W1982708523 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lynette Kolodziejak, Alfred J. Rémillard, Shannan L. Neubauer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interprofessional Care · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanRegina Qu'Appelle Health Region
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacistHealth careCredibilityMedicineFocus groupClinical pharmacyNursingHealth professionalsPrimary careMedical educationFamily medicinePharmacyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lynette Kolodziejak*a, Alfred Rémillardb & Shannan Neubauerca Pharmacy Department, Pasqua Hospital, Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, Reginab College of Pharmacy & Nutrition and Associate Member of the Department of Psychiatry, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewanc College of Pharmacy & Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan and Pharmacy Practice Team Leader, Yorkton Regional Health Centre – Sunrise Health Region, Yorkton, Saskatchewan, CanadaCorrespondence: Lynette Kolodziejak, BSP, MSc (Pharm), Pharmacist Development Specialist, Pharmacy Department, Pasqua Hospital, Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region, 4101 Dewdney Avenue, Regina, SK S4T 1A5, Canada. Tel: +1 306 766 2388. Fax: +1 306 766 2405. E-mail: lynette.kolodziejak@rqhealth.caPharmacists have been encouraged to enhance their role on primary healthcare teams; but, the profession has yet to be involved to the degree in which a substantial impact can be made. The objective of this study was to provide guidance on how to integrate a pharmacist into an already established primary healthcare team. Using action research, a panel of established primary healthcare pharmacists identified clinical activities for a primary healthcare pharmacist tailored for the project site. The results were presented to the primary healthcare team, who then collaborated with the pharmacist and researchers to define the role of the pharmacist. Once an agreement was reached, a pharmacist provided eight weeks of full-time clinical services. Upon completion, focus groups were used to evaluate the pharmacist's clinical services. The focus group data, along with the pharmacist's suggestions, formed a step-wise guide for integration. The template consists of eight steps which highlight the importance of selecting a collaborative process and team, defining the role of the pharmacist, determining the logistics of providing care, establishing credibility, re-evaluating the role as it evolves, and obtaining patient feedback. Pharmacists desiring to be involved in primary healthcare teams can follow this template to assist them with integration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interprofessional CareSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207