Uptake of Quality-Related Event Standards of Practice by Community Pharmacies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality-related events (QREs), including medication errors and near misses, are an inevitable part of community pharmacy practice. As QREs have significant implications for patient safety, pharmacy regulatory authorities across North America are increasing their expectations regarding QRE reporting and learning. Such expectations, commonly encapsulated as standards of practice (SoP), vary greatly between pharmacy jurisdictions and may range from the simple requirement to document QREs occurring within the pharmacy, all the way to requiring that quality improvement plans have been put in place. This research explores the uptake of QRE reporting and learning SoP and how this uptake varies based on pharmacy characteristics including location, prescription volume, and pharmacy type. Secondary data analysis of 91 community pharmacy assessments in Nova Scotia, Canada, was used to explore uptake of QRE standards. Overall, pharmacies are performing relatively well on reporting QREs. However, despite initial success with basic QRE reporting, community pharmacy uptake of QRE learning activities is lagging.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it