Processus d’appels d’offres relatif à l’approvisionnement en médicaments au sein des centres hospitaliers du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the spring of 2014, after conducting an audit of resource optimization process for pharmaceutical products and services, the Acting Auditor General of Quebec (VGIQ) filed a report that denounced the variation in drug prices among certain health institutions and the lack of bidding on the part of manufacturers and questioned the practice of some health institutions in the management of the supply of drugs in case of shortages. This report by the VGIQ enabled us to better understand the bidding process for the supply of drugs in health facilities. Not only did our research and meetings allow us to make important nuances about the conclusions reached by the Auditor General of Quebec, but also they enabled us to better identify the actual imperfections of the current bidding process. Considering its complexity, we wished in this report, to clarify the bidding process in order to enable the reader, whether from academic institutions, the business community or the public at large, to consider the benefits and disadvantages of this process in a more meaningful way. We believe this is essential for the effective participation of these actors, that might be required if the government wanted to modify the bidding process for the supply of drugs within Quebec hospitals or extend it to ambulatory settings. Au printemps 2014, après avoir effectué une vérification de l’optimisation des ressources en matière de médicaments et de services pharmaceutiques, le Vérificateur général par intérim du Québec (VGIQ) dépose un rapport qui dénonce notamment la variation du prix des médicaments entre certains établissements de santé et l’absence de soumission de la part de fabricants. Par ailleurs, on y questionne les pratiques de certains établissements de santé quant à la gestion de l’offre de médicaments en cas de pénuries. Ce rapport du VGIQ nous a poussées à mieux comprendre le processus d’appel d’offres relatif à l’approvisionnement des médicaments au sein des établissements de santé. Nos recherches et nos rencontres nous ont non seulement permis d’apporter d’importantes nuances quant aux conclusions du VGQ mais aussi de mieux identifier les réelles imperfections du mécanisme actuel. Considérant sa complexité, nous avons souhaité, dans ce rapport, vulgariser le processus d’appel d’offres afin de permettre au lecteur, qu’il soit académique, du milieu des affaires, ou du public, de poser un regard éclairé sur les avantages et les inconvénients de ce processus. Ce regard éclairé sera, selon nous, primordial à la participation effective de ces acteurs, qui pourrait s’avérer requise si le gouvernement souhaitait éventuellement apporter des modifications au processus d’appel d’offres relatif à l’approvisionnement de médicaments au sein des centres hospitaliers du Québec ou, encore, s’il souhaitait élargir ce dernier au milieu ambulatoire.
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 | 0.067 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.006 |
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".