Multidisciplinary members’ perspectives on a pharmacist joining a rheumatology practice team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacist participation in chronic disease management benefits patients in many ambulatory settings. We explored the attitudes and perceptions among multidisciplinary members of a rheumatology team towards the skills and responsibilities of a pharmacist joining their practice. METHODS: The physicians, nurse, physiotherapist and staff of a rheumatology clinic were invited to participate in focus group and semistructured interviews. Practice members also completed an inventory of perceived health professional roles in the medication use process. RESULTS: Discussions with 2 physicians, a nurse, physiotherapist and 1 office administrator were conducted. Concepts related to 3 key themes included positively viewed pharmacist roles broadly related to activities that encompass provision of medication-related services for the patients, the providers and the practice. Examples of such care included educational tasks related to therapies (rheumatological and otherwise) and maintenance of accurate drug histories. These findings were reflected in high scores for perceived pharmacist roles in education and medication review responsibilities using the Medication Use Processes Matrix instrument. Most members were not comfortable with pharmacists conducting physical assessments and emphasized the need for a team member who could adapt to variations in workflow preferences across rheumatologists in the practice. INTERPRETATION: Perceived pharmacist roles expressed by existing rheumatology team members were largely consistent with the scope of pharmacist knowledge, skills and responsibilities in primary care. CONCLUSION: Overall, existing multidisciplinary staff exhibited favourable attitudes towards a pharmacist joining their practice setting. Data from this job analysis exercise were used to inform the development of a job description for a rheumatology clinical pharmacist.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".