Provision of pharmaceutical care to patients with limited English proficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A study was conducted to evaluate the current practices of pharmacists in ambulatory care clinics in communicating with and providing pharmaceutical care to patients who have limited English proficiency. METHODS: Semistructured surveys were used to gather data from 16 pharmacists and 8 physicians from 15 ambulatory care clinics in metropolitan Toronto. The survey examined pharmacists' knowledge about the linguistic services, policies, and guidelines in their ambulatory care practice settings; the strategies that pharmacists and physicians use to communicate with patients with limited English proficiency; the challenges pharmacists face when providing pharmaceutical care to those patients; the drug-related problems observed by pharmacists and physicians; and how pharmacists and physicians can collaborate to resolve medication issues for those patients. RESULTS: Many pharmacists (69%) were unaware of existing institutional policies for communicating with patients with limited English proficiency. Language interpretation services in clinics were nonstandardized and did not always reflect practitioners' preferences. All aspects of pharmaceutical care were reported to be difficult to accomplish in patients with limited English proficiency. Pharmacists and physicians identified similar drug-related problems, with nonadherence being the most commonly observed drug-related problem. Strategies suggested by pharmacists and physicians to improve communication with patients involved proactively identifying language needs of patients before appointments, having translated medication information available and using trained language interpreters. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists at 15 ambulatory care clinics reported difficulty communicating with and providing pharmaceutical care to patients with limited English proficiency. Strategies suggested by pharmacists and physicians to enhance communication with those patients may help improve the quality of pharmaceutical care delivered.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".