Expanding the Scope of Practice for Pharmacists in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the Regulated Health Professions Statute Law Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 179) received Royal Assent in Ontario. The resulting legislative amendments were intended to strengthen government oversight of the health regulatory colleges, promote interprofessional collaboration, and make better use of health professionals' existing skills and training by enhancing the scope of practice for several health professions in order to improve health system efficiency. Among the most notable scope of practice enhancements were those given to pharmacists, who would be permitted to: modify and renew existing prescriptions, prescribe a limited range of drugs independent of a physician, and administer medications such as vaccinations via injection or inhalation. The reform was driven in large part by the government's concerns related to the rising cost of health care, the public's desire for greater access to services, and demonstrated successes of similar reforms in other jurisdictions. While the Ontario reform has had some clear success, such as expanding the public's access to influenza vaccinations, to date, the evidence of achieving other goals remains weak. In particular, there is no clear evidence of improved health system efficiency and associated cost effectiveness. Moreover, it is possible that Ontario's umbrella regulatory model may be making interprofessional collaboration more, rather than less, difficult to realize.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".