MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2044770569 · doi:10.1177/1715163513507525

On becoming a new pharmacist

2013· article· en· W2044770569 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ross T. Tsuyuki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacistMedicineNursingPharmacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Last issue, I introduced you to 3 recent pharmacy graduates who we’ll be following through the ups and downs of becoming new pharmacists. As you’ll recall, all 3 were hired specifically to provide patient-centred care rather than the traditional product-focused (distribution) role. Let’s check in with them a few months into their new jobs. Reid McDonald and Anita Cumbleton have settled into their positions at Fyfe’s Friendly Pharmacy in Barrhead, Alberta. They report that things have been going well. They’ve been busy performing 3 to 5 medication reviews every day. Relationships with the local physicians have been very good, although not all support what they are doing. Their main challenge has been that patients seem unaware of what their pharmacists can do for them. Sometimes patients say “my physician can do that” and dismiss their offer of a medication review. Anita and Reid have changed their approach to patients by making the medication reviews less formal, starting to engage patients more casually by asking them a few questions about their medications. When patients realize how little they know about their medications, it seems to lead them to want to talk more. Another thing that seems to work is to start engaging them while they are waiting for their prescription (rather than after it’s ready). Bryan Gray has been aggressively pursuing MedsCheck reviews for his patients as well at Shoppers Drug Mart in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Early on he had a disturbing experience. He conducted a review for a 75-year-old patient who had been receiving hormone replacement therapy for 20 years. She had not had any menopausal symptoms in over 10 years, and they discussed breast cancer risk. Bryan wrote a letter to her gynecologist, citing the evidence for increased risk of breast cancer. The physician sent back his letter with the following comments: “Please mind your own business” and “PS, You are also poorly informed. There [have been] follow-up studies since the WHI [Women’s Health Initiative].” Bryan was alerted to this response by his boss, who expressed concern that he had “pissed off Dr. X” and that they’d better talk. Not surprisingly, Bryan’s first reaction was that of anger at the unprofessionalism of the physician. He thought of going to his office and confronting him. He also had second thoughts about his decision to intervene in this case. In the end, he explains, “If this was my mother or grandmother, I wouldn’t let this slide, therefore I can’t let it slide for my patients.” Indeed, patient care trumps all. Bryan has changed his approach. He is no longer “cold faxing” but rather phoning the physician first. He reports that this tactic has worked well. Some physicians are very appreciative, while others seem taken aback that he is calling, but are still okay. As you might expect, our new pharmacists have received a good “loading dose” of reality. What impresses me is that despite some barriers, they have shown us that persistence towards the goal of advocating for their patients is more important than their own pride or feelings. Rather than recoiling from the challenges, they are sharpening their resolve. They are learning new tactics to apply their care, and we shall continue to follow along, learning from them (and cheering them on). ■

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0110.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1870.087

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 head0.422
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.060 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada→Same topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare→French-language works237,207→