Patients’ and physicians’ satisfaction with a pharmacist managed anticoagulation program in a family medicine clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A pharmacist managed anticoagulation service was initiated in a multi-physician family medicine clinic in December 2006. In order to determine the patient and physician satisfaction with the service, a study was designed to describe the patients' satisfaction with the warfarin education and management they received from the pharmacist, and to describe the physicians' satisfaction with the level of care provided by the pharmacist for patients taking warfarin. A self-administered survey was completed by both eligible patients receiving warfarin and physicians prescribing warfarin between December 2006 and May 2008. The patient survey collected information on patient demographics, satisfaction with warfarin education and daily warfarin management. The physician survey collected data about the satisfaction with patient education and daily anticoagulation management by the pharmacist. RESULTS: Seventy-six of 94 (81%) patients completed the survey. Fifty-nine percent were male with a mean age of 65 years (range 24-90). Ninety-six percent agreed/strongly agreed the pharmacist did a good job teaching the importance of warfarin adherence, the necessity of INR testing and the risks of bleeding. Eighty-five percent agreed/strongly agreed the risk of blood clots was well explained, 79% felt the pharmacist did a good job teaching about dietary considerations and 77% agreed/strongly agreed the pharmacist explained when to see a doctor. All patients felt the pharmacist gave clear instructions on warfarin dosing and INR testing. Four of nine physicians (44%) completed the survey. All agreed/strongly agreed the pharmacist was competent in the care provided, were confident in the care their patients received, would like the pharmacist to continue the service, and would recommend this program to other clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and family physicians were satisfied with the pharmacist managed anticoagulation program and recommended continuation of the program. These results support the role of the pharmacist in the management of anticoagulation in a multi-physician family medicine clinic.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".