An Opinion Paper Outlining Recommendations for Training, Credentialing, and Documenting and Justifying Critical Care Pharmacy Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2000, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) published a position paper that defined critical care pharmacy services as fundamental, desirable, and optimal. A task force was developed that included individuals who are members of the ACCP Critical Care Practice and Research Network, the SCCM clinical pharmacy and pharmacology section, and the American Society of Health‐System Pharmacists to develop an opinion paper with three primary objectives: to provide recommendations for the level of preparation and training of pharmacists to practice in critical care, to develop recommendations for the credentialing of pharmacists providing critical care services, and to develop mechanisms for documenting and justifying intensive care unit (ICU) pharmacy services. Each objective was addressed to accommodate the levels of services defined as fundamental, desirable, or optimal, and are targeted at all pharmacists providing or wanting to provide pharmacy services to critically ill patients. The training and preparing of the pharmacist caring for critically ill patients is discussed in the context of the knowledge and skills required to provide pharmacy services in the ICU. Credentialing of the critical care pharmacist and the documentation of services take into account the various scopes of practice, and recommendations are based on current and idealistic mechanisms. A detailed outline is provided for the process of services justification. This paper provides a foundation that is focused on delivering direct and proactive patient care services, particularly at the desirable and optimal levels, with the ultimate goal of enhancing the level of pharmacy services provided to the care of critically ill patients. This commentary should be of interest to numerous stakeholders including pharmacists, other pharmacy department staff, other ICU health care professionals, hospital and academic administrators, accrediting agencies, government officials, and payers. The task force encourages the profession of pharmacy in general to incorporate key recommendations provided in this document with respect to specialized training, credentialing, and service justification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.019 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".