Community pharmacy rapid influenza A and B screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact and feasibility of community pharmacist-directed influenza screening and to evaluate the proportion of influenza-positive cases that resulted in the initiation of antiviral therapy by pharmacists. METHODS: Patients aged 5 and older with symptoms suggestive of influenza were recruited at 2 Shoppers Drug Mart locations in Toronto, Ontario, from December 12, 2014, to February 4, 2015. Nasal swabs were collected by pharmacists and screened using the BD Veritor system for Rapid Detection of Flu A+B. Positive tests for influenza were reported to patients' physicians and recommendations for antiviral therapy were made when indicated. Supportive care recommendations and telephone follow-up within 48 hours of assessment were provided to all patients. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients participated in the influenza screening program. Sixty-one percent of patients were at high risk for influenza-related complications, while 15% had more than one risk factor. Thirty-four percent of patients screened positive for influenza, of which 100% were influenza A. Of the patients who screened positive, a prescription for oseltamivir was obtained in 40% of cases. The majority of prescriptions were provided directly to the pharmacy (63%), while the balance was provided after the patients underwent medical examination at the request of their physicians (37%). The pharmacy team offered supportive care to all patients for symptom management. Over-the-counter pharmacotherapy was provided to 85% of patients. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the readiness of community pharmacists to participate in the management of patients with influenza and their ability to implement screening into pharmacy workflow. Community pharmacy-based influenza screening may facilitate prompt access to pharmacologic treatment for patients with influenza, as well as decrease burden on the health care system by redirecting influenza-negative patients from physicians' offices and hospitals. Timely physician communication remains a barrier to access to treatment, suggesting a potential key role for advanced pharmacist prescribing. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2016;149:83-89.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".