Professional Pharmacy Services and Patient Complexity: An Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the association between the provision of professional pharmacy services (PPS) and patient complexity as determined by the number of distinct medications dispensed in Ontario. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among all individuals dispensed one or more medications under the Ontario Public Drug Program (OPDP) between April 1st, 2012 and March 31st, 2013. We compared characteristics of patients receiving -1 or more PPS to those receiving no PPS. To assess the relationship between patient complexity (as measured by the number of chronic medications dispensed) and receipt of PPS, we reported the number and proportion of patients eligible for Ontario Drug Benefits (ODB) who received a PPS within each patient complexity group, and compared these proportions using the Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: Over the 1-year study period, 27.1% (N = 799,674 of 2,946,183) of ODB beneficiaries received at least one professional pharmacy service. Among these services, more than two-thirds of the patients received a MedsCheck service (N=511,490; 64.0%). Overall, individuals who received a PPS tended to be older, more likely to reside in a long-term care (LTC) facility, have multiple comorbidities, and were more likely to have been prescribed 9 or more medications in the past year. As patient complexity increased, the proportion of ODB beneficiaries who received PPS also increased; 3.0% of individuals prescribed between 1 and 2 medications in the past year received PPS, while 53.6% of those treated with 13 or more medications received PPS (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the findings of our study suggest the use of PPS increases with patient complexity, many complex patients are not receiving these services. Further studies are required to better understand why patients do not access these services, the impact of professional pharmacy services on patient health outcomes, and their value for the health care system.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".