A survey of Pharmacy and Therapeutic committees across Canada: scope and responsibilities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committees have traditionally evaluated and developed policies for the clinical use of medications and for ensuring safe and effective drug use and administration. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the current activities of hospital P&T committees across Canada. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to 856 (693 English, 163 French translations) Canadian hospitals (acute, chronic or rehabilitation) across Canada. Questions consisted of information on P&T membership, scope and responsibilities. Completed surveys were returned by fax. All data was entered into Excel and analyzed for descriptive statistics. RESULTS: 123 surveys were returned, representing 207 hospitals, for an effective response rate of 24%. Four hospitals returned incomplete surveys. Surveys were returned from all areas of Canada, except the territories. On average, P&T committees met six times per year. The average size of the committees was 11 members, with physicians comprising half the membership. Pharmacists and nurses had equal representation; other members were community representatives, dieticians, quality assurance personnel and/or administrators. The top responsibilities of the P&T committee were inpatient formulary management (93% of respondents), drug-use policy making (92%), adverse drug reaction monitoring (83%), patient safety (80%) and drug-use monitoring (80%). Subcommittees were utilized by 46% of P&T committees including antimicrobial (38%), medication safety (25%) and nutrition (14%). Economic evaluations were most frequently completed by a pharmacist who had some previous pharmacoeconomic experience. CONCLUSION: This survey reports on the current status and responsibilities, namely formulary management and policy making, of P&T committees in 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".