MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987907782 · doi:10.1177/1715163514536678

Paying pharmacists for patient care

2014· review· en· W1987907782 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sherilyn K. D. Houle, Kelly Grindrod, Trish Chatterley, Ross T. Tsuyuki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemunerationPharmacistRevenueMedicineMedical prescriptionPharmacyFamily medicinePaymentMEDLINEScope of practiceHealth careBusinessNursingPolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0640.006

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations165
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du CanadaSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207