MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2120543447

La délégation de tâches cliniques à des étudiants en pharmacie : quoi déléguer et comment procéder ?

2008· article· fr· W2120543447 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Rochon, Maryse Bernard, Jude Goulet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDelegationHumanitiesPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)Economic shortageDirectivePhilosophyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resume Objectif : Cet article decrit une strategie de delegation de tâches cliniques a adopter lors de l’embauche d’etudiants. Mise en contexte : Dans le contexte actuel de penurie, il est avantageux d’affecter les etudiants embauches dans le cadre d’un emploi d’ete a des tâches cliniques plutot que techniques. L’emission d’une directive ministerielle a facilite la delegation aux etudiants en pharmacie de tâches cliniques effectuees normalement par les pharmaciens. Les inquietudes de l’equipe de pharmaciens face a la charge de travail supplementaire et a la responsabilite professionnelle qui lui est associee nous amenent a reflechir a la demarche a suivre pour deleguer des tâches cliniques aux etudiants. Conclusion : A la lumiere de la revue documentaire et de la situation locale, nous avons developpe un plan detaille de delegation afin de rendre l’experience agreable et enrichissante. Ce plan sera applique a l’embauche d’etudiants en mai 2008. Cette demarche comprend quatre etapes : formation, observation, supervision, delegation. Abstract Objective: This article describes a student-hiring strategy for the delegation of clinical tasks. Context: Given the current shortage of staff, it is advantageous to assign clinical tasks rather than technical tasks to students hired for the summer. The emission of a ministerial directive has facilitated the delegation to students of clinical tasks normally undertaken by pharmacists. The consideration of which approach to adopt for the delegation of clinical tasks to students arises from concerns of pharmacists about the increased workload and the associated professional responsibility. Conclusion: In light of the review of documents and of the local situation, we have developed a detailed plan for the delegation of tasks to ensure that the experience is both pleasant and rewarding. This plan will be applied when students are hired in May 2008. This approach consists of four steps: training, observation, supervision, and delegation. Key words: delegation; pharmacy students; clinical tasks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.302
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes→French-language works237,207→