Role of the Pharmacist on a Multidisciplinary Psychiatry Team: Impact on Medication Adherence in a Community Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To report the effect of pharmacist involvement in a multidisciplinary psychiatry team managing high-risk patients in the community. Case Summary: We report 3 cases of professional collaboration that highlight the role of the pharmacist as a member of the multidisciplinary psychiatry team in the successful management of high-risk patients. Regular communication between pharmacists and psychiatrists, as well as delivery of specialized pharmacy services such as dispensing of medications in controlled supply, witnessed medication consumption, and adherence monitoring, resulted in decreased use of emergency services, decreased incidents of overdose, and increased adherence to medication. Discussion: The management of psychiatric patients poses a significant challenge to healthcare providers. Poor adherence to drug therapy is often a significant barrier to treatment success and can lead to clinical and economic burdens. Professional collaboration between psychiatrists and pharmacists can aid in successful management of psychiatric patients at risk of relapse or deterioration in the community setting secondary to nonadherence and/or possible overdose. The pharmacist is often an unrecognized or underutilized member of the multidisciplinary team. The recent focus on expanding the pharmacist's scope of practice supports the involvement of pharmacists as integral members of interdisciplinary and collaborative care models. Conclusions: Interprofessional collaboration and implementation of specialized pharmacy services can increase patient adherence to medication regimens, reduce the potential for overdose, and aid in the successful management of psychiatric patients in the community setting. Although we have highlighted a small number of cases, future research is required to assess the effectiveness of such interventions on a larger scale.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".