Survey of Alberta hospital pharmacists’ perspectives on additional prescribing authorization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The results of a survey to determine reasons for the slow adoption of prescribing authority by hospital pharmacists in the Canadian province of Alberta are presented. METHODS: A Web-based survey was conducted to elucidate pharmacist perspectives on additional prescribing authorization (APA), which permits independent prescribing by Alberta pharmacists who complete a peer-reviewed application process (at the time of the survey, only 52 hospital pharmacists had been granted APA). The survey elicited demographic data and practice characteristics and explored perspectives on APA and their influence on the decision to apply or not apply for APA. RESULTS: Approximately 500 pharmacists were invited to participate in the survey, and 314 (63%) responded and met the study inclusion criteria. The perceived relevancy and value of APA to respondents' practice activities and potential benefits such as increased efficiency appear to be important factors motivating pharmacists to apply for APA. A perception that the application process is too lengthy and concerns about potential drawbacks (e.g., increased liability risk, inability to fulfill patient follow-up and documentation requirements) appear to be strong influences on decisions to forgo pursuing APA. CONCLUSION: Results of a survey of hospital pharmacists in Alberta suggest that APA is adopted more often by pharmacists whose primary focus is ambulatory care, those with higher levels of education, and those with more colleagues who also have APA. The perceived relevancy and value of APA to practice activities and the potential for increased efficiency and job satisfaction appear to be strong influences on decisions to seek APA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".