Influence of the British Columbia reference drug program on hospital formularies: a survey of hospital pharmacy managers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the British Columbia Reference Drug (RD) Program on the management of hospital formularies in the province. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of pharmacy managers in British Columbia hospitals with more than 100 beds was conducted in November, 1997. The survey instrument contained questions regarding hospital characteristics, drugs listed on the formulary before and after implementation of RD policies for four drug classes, the hospitals' responses to RD policies and the respondents' opinions of the RD Program. RESULTS: Thirty-two (86%) hospitals returned the survey by the stated deadline. Before the RD Program was implemented, significantly more hospitals listed cimetidine (P=0.03), felodipine (P<0.001), quinapril (P<0.001) and ramipril (P<0.001) on the hospital drug formulary. The main reasons given for changes to hospital drug formularies were community prescribing patterns (25% to 38%) and the RD Program (23% to 44%) depending on the drug category. Twenty-seven (84%) hospitals did not automatically adopt RD policies; 22 (69%) hospitals reviewed the policies at Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee meetings. Sixteen (50%) respondents thought that hospitals should change their drug formularies to match the policies. Median satisfaction with the RD Program on a 10-point rating scale (1 = unsatisfied, 10 = satisfied) was 7 (range 2 to 10). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents appeared to be neutral when asked their opinion of the RD initiative. The RD policies resulted in drug category-dependent changes in the hospital formulary listings. H2 receptor antagonists and antihypertensives were the most significantly influenced drug categories. RD status does not automatically confer formulary status of a drug; however, it does appear to be a criterion in most hospitals when considering a drug for inclusion in the formulary.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".