Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is a pharmacist’s duty of care?* Having a duty implies taking responsibility, so let me rephrase: Is a pharmacist responsible for patient care? Most pharmacists would say, “Absolutely yes.” But does that responsibility end with dispensing the right drug? It shouldn’t, but it often does. Many pharmacists are unwilling to take on responsibility for actual patient care. Why? In a provocative article in this issue of CPJ, Frankel and Austin explore the reasons for pharmacists’ avoidance of responsibility and lack of confidence in making decisions. Their results are humbling, to say the least. They identified 6 themes that act as barriers to confidence and responsibility: hierarchy of the medical system, lack of role definition, incomplete evolution of responsibility, ownership of decision making, poor quality of mentorship and personality traits that we select for in pharmacy. These barriers tell us a lot about our collective personality and culture. And it doesn’t look good. In my assessment, every single one of these barriers is self-created. We look to blame others, but really, it’s us. We don’t have a place in the health care hierarchy because we are not willing to take a part (i.e., take some responsibility); we complain that the public and physicians don’t know what we do (yet we don’t show them, and what they generally see are product-centred technical functions); we blame our academic institutions for not preparing us (yet we, as supposed professionals, don’t do anything on our own to address these deficiencies); we say things like, “Well, it would all be different if I could prescribe . . .” (yet we do not practise to our full scope, e.g., the uptake of prescribing in Alberta has been minimal); we complain that we have poor mentors for demonstrating responsibility (yet it is we who are the mentors); we complain that we select the wrong people for pharmacy school (yet we are the ones making those selections and then “mentoring” them). Step back and look in the mirror—the entire system of barriers is a circular set of excuses—we are the problem! Taking responsibility for patient care (meaning real patient care, not technical functions of dispensing) is the only way forward for our profession. As such, Frankel and Austin’s work is truly fundamental to understanding and carving out our professional identity. Elsewhere in this issue is an inspiring example of a pharmacist coming to terms with her responsibilities toward patient care. Kelly Grindrod provides a fascinating and very personal reflection of her struggle with her duties as a pharmacist and educator. And she found her voice. We need more of this kind of courage. From everyone. We want a professional culture that values patient care. One that puts the needs of patients and society above those of practitioners. How do we change that? The answer is in the mirror. Stop blaming others. We must have the courage and persistence to expect better things from ourselves and our colleagues. It’s our duty. ■
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".