Development of Pharmacy Services in a Family Medicine Residency Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Reports of pharmacists working in family medicine settings appeared in the literature as early as 19741 and have continued to the present day.2-28 The role of the pharmacist in this setting has evolved over the past 30 years. In the 1970s most sites had dispensaries, and pharmacists were involved in traditional dispensing functions.1-3,6,7 Pharmacists were also involved in patient care activities (e.g., counselling and taking medication histories), liaising with pharmaceutical company representatives, and providing drug information and education to physicians.1-10 The 1980s saw the expansion of patient care services (i.e., consultations, monitoring, home visits, and liaising with community pharmacists) and the enhancement of services to health care professionals (i.e., education for physicians, residents, and nurses; formulary product selection; and newsletters).11,12,14,15,17-19,21,22 This growth continued into the 1990s, with pharmacists becoming more involved in committee and administrative work as well as research and scholarly activities.23-27,29-33 These changes were especially evident in sites that served as training facilities for family physicians.23,25,27,28,30-33 The first study of pharmacists’ contributions in this setting was reported in 1975. It showed that pharmacists’ consultations with patients regarding their medications and health care needs improved consumers’ attitudes toward pharmacy.3 In a 1979 study, a peer review panel concluded that drug therapy recommendations made by pharmacists and implemented by physicians were appropriate and had favourable effects on patient care.10 Studies published since then have shown that patient-specific consultations and both formal and informal drug-related education provided by the clinical pharmacist improve physicians’ prescribing practices.34,35 Other studies have reported that recommendations made by clinical pharmacists contribute positively to patient care by resolving drugrelated problems or improving the clinical status of the patient.30,36,37 Several studies have described patients’, physicians’, and family medicine residents’ positive perception of clinical pharmacy services.9,12,33,37,38 Other research has demonstrated the positive cost–benefit ratio of clinical pharmacy services in family practice.39-42 Most of the research appears to have been conducted at sites with residency training programs in family medicine.9,10,12,30,33-38 There is, however, a paucity of information on the role or impact of clinical pharmacists in family medicine settings in Canada. The purpose of this paper is to describe the implementation and growth of pharmacy services in a family medicine residency training program in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.006 |
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".