Patient’s Perspectives on Team-Based Care by a Clinical Pharmacist: Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1During the course of the study, several patients or their family members offered positive comments about the teambased clinical pharmacist services. These cases came to the authors’ attention during weekly investigator meetings and via pharmacists’ reflective journals, which were kept as a mecha nism to capture pharmacists’ experiences in working with the rounding medical team. 2 Since the overall research plan did not allow for a systematic evaluation of patient satisfaction with the service provided by pharmacists, it was decided to attempt to systematically capture comments from patients in another way, with a view to better understanding and demonstrating the impact of team-based delivery of clinical pharmacist services from the patient’s perspective. METHODS Information provided by the 2 team-based pharmacists involved in the COLLABORATE study was used to retrospec tively (i.e., near the end of the 1-year study period) identify patients who had demonstrated willingness to “act as a reference” for the study pharmacists as a result of the care provided during the study. This patient identification scheme was chosen because it was impossible to contact the entire population of patients who had interacted with the team-based pharmacist, since the requirement for patient consent had been waived in the original COLLABORATE study. Three potential patients were identified and were approached by telephone to participate in a face-to-face semistructured interview. One patient and her husband/ caregiver agreed to participate in the interview, and the pharmacist’s reflective journal was screened for any comments pertaining to this case. The interview was designed to let the patient and caregiver tell their versions of the events that occurred during the hospital stay, particularly their experience working with the pharmacist and the impact of the pharma cist’s care on the patient’s recovery and future ability to manage her medications. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Review Board of the University of Alberta, and informed consent was obtained from the participants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".