Paying pharmacists for patient care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Expansion of scope of practice and diminishing revenues from dispensing are requiring pharmacists to increasingly adopt clinical care services into their practices. Pharmacists must be able to receive payment in order for provision of clinical care to be sustainable. The objective of this study is to update a previous systematic review by identifying remunerated pharmacist clinical care programs worldwide and reporting on uptake and patient care outcomes observed as a result. METHODS: Literature searches were performed in several databases, including MEDLINE, Embase and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, for papers referencing remuneration, pharmacy and cognitive services. Searches of the grey literature and Internet were also conducted. Papers and programs were identified up to December 2012 and were included if they were not reported in our previous review. One author performed data abstraction, which was independently reviewed by a second author. All results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: Sixty new remunerated programs were identified across Canada, the United States, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, ranging in complexity from emergency contraception counseling to minor ailments schemes and comprehensive medication management. In North America, the average fee provided for a medication review is $68.86 (all figures are given in Canadian dollars), with $23.37 offered for a follow-up visit and $15.16 for prescription adaptations. Time-dependent fees were reimbursed at $93.60 per hour on average. Few programs evaluated uptake and outcomes of these services but, when available, indicated slow uptake but improved chronic disease markers and cost savings. DISCUSSION: Remuneration for pharmacists' clinical care services is highly variable, with few programs reporting program outcomes. Programs and pharmacists are encouraged to examine the time required to perform these activities and the outcomes achieved to ensure that fees are adequate to sustain these patient care activities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it