Stories from the Trenches: Experiences of Alberta Pharmacists in Obtaining Additional Prescribing Authority
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacists in Alberta can apply to the Alberta College of Pharmacists in order to obtain the designation of additional prescriber. This designation uniquely allows them to initiate therapy, in addition to other medication-related activities. Our objective was to examine specific experiences of pharmacists regarding the decision to apply and the application itself, and use this information to help inform other pharmacists who are considering additional prescribing. METHODS: All pharmacists involved in a randomized, controlled trial being conducted in rural Alberta who had received their additional prescribing authorization (APA) were invited to participate. Pharmacists were contacted via e-mail and asked to respond to questions regarding their experiences in applying for APA. Responses were analyzed using content analysis and the identites of all respondents were kept anonymous. RESULTS: Fourteen pharmacists were invited to participate. Review and examination of the responses revealed 3 main themes: motivation, hurdles and outcomes. Motivation can be understood as the reasons why they applied for their APA. Hurdles include any problems encountered of a personal, environmental or professional nature. Outcomes refer to how this designation has changed their practice. DISCUSSION: Pharmacists had to address many factors that were unexpected during the application process; however, the eventual outcome of obtaining APA was deemed beneficial, both professionally and with regard to patient care. CONCLUSION: The information shared from these pharmacists will help other pharmacists, regardless of jurisdiction, overcome some of the challenges associated with obtaining advanced prescribing privileges.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".