Eligibility requirements for community pharmacy medication review services in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background A medication review is defined as a structured, critical examination of a patient’s medications with the objectives of reaching an agreement with the patient about his or her treatment and optimizing the impact of medications on the patient’s health.1 Most provinces in Canada have recently implemented government-sponsored programs to compensate community pharmacies for providing medication reviews to patients who meet predefined eligibility requirements. Ontario was the first province to remunerate community pharmacies for a standardized medication review program in 2007 called MedsCheck. Since 2007, similar programs have appeared in other provinces. The remuneration provided to pharmacies ranges from $52.50 to $150 per review, with some programs offering $15 to $35 for follow-up services. While the operational details and terminology of each program differ to some degree, all of these programs share the common goal of having a pharmacist meet with patients to provide education about the medications they are taking, to provide the patients (and pharmacy) with a current best possible medication history, to identify and address drug therapy problems and to elucidate and monitor patients’ progress toward the goals of their drug therapy. The provincial funding available for these programs is limited, and pharmacist time continues to be at a premium. Consequently, each province has limited access to these services by developing strict eligibility criteria. The presumed goal of the criteria is to ensure that these new programs improve patient outcomes and use public resources responsibly, by providing the service to patients who will benefit the most. This article is intended to provide an overview of the eligibility criteria for provincially funded medication review programs across Canada.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".