MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054318356 · doi:10.1177/1715163513504528

Guidelines for pharmacists integrating into primary care teams

2013· article· en· W2054318356 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Derek Jorgenson, Dan Dalton, Barbara Farrell, Ross T. Tsuyuki, Lisa Dolovich

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Pharmacists Journal / Revue des Pharmaciens du Canada · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCollege of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of SaskatchewanUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsPharmacistNursingCLARITYMedicineHealth careClinical pharmacyFamily medicineMedical educationPharmacy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health systems are moving toward a more interprofessional approach to primary care. This team-based paradigm has had a significant impact on the role of pharmacists within primary health care systems. Within the past decade, nondispensing clinical pharmacists have been integrated into many Primary Care Trusts in the United Kingdom,1,2 primary care teams in North America3-5 and similar practice settings around the world.6,7 Pharmacists bring value to these teams by improving medication use through individual patient assessments and population-based interventions, providing education and drug information to other team members and implementing system-level practice enhancements.3 Pharmacists commonly encounter barriers to integrating into these primary care teams. For example, many experience a lack of role clarity, and other team members’ expectations regarding the pharmacists’ responsibilities are frequently unclear.4,8-11 In addition, patients often do not understand the role of the pharmacist in this setting.9,10,12 Pharmacists are also typically unfamiliar with the roles of other team members,13 creating difficulties in collaborating successfully.14-16 During the early stages, pharmacists often depend on other team members to assist in their integration, creating additional work for nurses and physicians.17 Other frequently reported barriers include physician resistance, lack of pharmacist assertiveness, inadequate pharmacist support, lack of space and inadequate pharmacist training.9-11,13,14,17-21 Many of these barriers to pharmacist integration can be minimized or avoided if pharmacists are prepared. Unfortunately, recent evidence suggests that pharmacists often continue to make the same mistakes and struggle to integrate into these teams, despite the fact that these barriers are well documented in the literature.22 The purpose of these guidelines is to provide recommendations that will assist pharmacists to successfully integrate into existing primary care teams.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.016

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations88
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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