Assessment of a fax document for transfer of medication information to family physicians and community pharmacists caring for hemodialysis outpatients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have clearly identified the outpatient dialysis population as one that is at high risk for drug-related problems. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether a fax document was useful for community pharmacies and family physicians to notify these health care providers that their patient was receiving hemodialysis, to update medication and allergy records, provide dosing information on antibiotics and drugs to avoid, facilitate communication from the hemodialysis unit, and to decide if this was a worthwhile project to continue on an on-going basis. METHODS: Fax documents were sent to community pharmacists and family physicians of 70 hemodialysis patients from two different hemodialysis satellite units. The fax document consisted of a brief cover letter with contact numbers, a copy of the patient's medication and allergy list, a table of appropriate antibiotic doses and medications to avoid in dialysis, and a survey to evaluate this project's usefulness. Fisher's exact test was used to determine whether there were any significant differences between the family physician and community pharmacist responses. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 37%. Ninety-five per cent (20/21) of family physicians and 81% (22/27) of community pharmacists who responded to the survey would use the medication profile to update their records. Ninety-five per cent of family physicians and 93% of community pharmacies thought the fax document was an improvement in communication from the dialysis unit. Ninety per cent of family physicians and 85% of community pharmacies thought that the fax document was a worthwhile project for the dialysis unit to continue. No significant differences were found between family physician and community pharmacist responses. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a fax document for the transfer of medication information to family physicians and community pharmacists caring for hemodialysis patients aids in updating medication and allergy profiles, improves communication fom the dialysis unit and is considered a worthwhile project to continue on an ongoing basis.
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 | 0.021 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".