BC Medication Management Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The BC Medication Management Project (BCMMP) was developed by the BC Ministry of Health and the BC Pharmacy Association. This pilot project ran from September 2010 to January 2012. Pharmacists reviewed patients' medication histories, discussed best use of medications, provided education and monitored for adverse effects, developed a plan to deal with medication issues and created a best possible medication history. METHODS: To evaluate the experience of participating in the BCMMP, challenges and strengths of the project and the alignment of these experiences with the overarching goals, focus groups and interviews were conducted with 6 stakeholder groups. Themes were compared within and across stakeholder type and descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 88 people participated in the focus groups/interviews. Pharmacists stated that providing BCMMP services was professionally satisfying and concurred with patients that the service did benefit them. However, participating in the BCMMP was not seen as financially sustainable by pharmacy owners, and there were concerns about patient selection. Physicians expressed concerns about increased workload associated with the BCMMP, for which they were not compensated. The computer system and burden of documentation were identified as the greatest problems. CONCLUSIONS: The BCMMP pilot project was enthusiastically received by pharmacists and patients who felt that it benefited patients and moved the pharmacy profession in a positive direction. It was widely felt that the BCMMP could be successful and sustainable if the identified challenges are addressed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.103 | 0.017 |
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".