MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2541765397 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v69i5.1590

Need for Formal Specialization in Pharmacy in Canada: A Survey of Hospital Pharmacists

2016· article· en· W2541765397 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jonathan Penm, Neil J. MacKinnon, Derek Jorgenson, Jun Ying, Jennifer Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsIntertek (Canada)University of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyHospital pharmacyFamily medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background: The Blueprint for Pharmacy was a collaborative initiative involving all of the major pharmacy associations in Canada. It aimed to coordinate, facilitate, and be a catalyst for changes required to align pharmacy practice with the health care needs of Canadians. In partial fulfilment of this mandate, a needs assessment for specialist certification for pharmacists was conducted. Objective: To conduct a secondary analysis of data from the needs assessment to determine the perceptions of hospital pharmacists regarding a formal certification process for pharmacist specialties in Canada. Methods: A survey was developed in consultation with the Blueprint for Pharmacy Specialization Project Advisory Group and other key stakeholders. It was distributed electronically, in English and French, to Canadian pharmacists identified through national and provincial pharmacy organizations (survey period January 15 to February 12, 2015). Data for hospital pharmacists were extracted for this secondary analysis. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to characterize those respondents who supported the certification process and those intending to become certified if a Canadian process were introduced. Results: A total of 640 responses were received from hospital pharmacists. Nearly 85% of the respondents (543/640 [84.8%]) supported a formal certification process for pharmacist specialization, and more than 70% (249/349 [71.3%]) indicated their intention to obtain specialty certification if a Canadian process were introduced. Respondents believed that the main barriers to developing such a system were lack of reimbursement models, the time required, and lack of public awareness of pharmacist specialties. They felt that the most important factors for an optimal certification process were a consistent definition of pharmacist specialty practice and consistent recognition of pharmacist specialty practice across Canada. Multiple regression analysis showed that female respondents were more likely to support a formal certification process (odds ratio [OR] 2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2–5.7). Also, those who already specialized in pharmacotherapy were more likely to support mandatory certification (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.1–6.1). Conclusions: Hospital pharmacists who responded to this survey overwhelmingly supported certification for pharmacist specialization in Canada. Questions remain about the feasibility of establishing a pharmacist specialization system in Canada. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Le Plan directeur pour la pharmacie était un projet collaboratif auquel participaient les plus importantes associations canadiennes de pharmacie. Il cherchait à coordonner, faciliter et catalyser les changements nécessaires pour harmoniser la pratique de la profession avec les besoins en soins de santé des Canadiens. Une évaluation des besoins pour un système de certification des pharmaciens spécialistes a été menée dans le cadre de ce projet. Objectif : Réaliser une analyse secondaire des données recueillies lors de l’évaluation des besoins afin de cerner les opinions des pharmaciens d’hôpitaux en ce qui touche au mécanisme formel de certification pour les spécialités en pharmacie au Canada. Méthodes :Un sondage a été mis au point en consultation avec le Groupe consultatif sur le projet de spécialisation en pharmacie, sous l’égide du Plan directeur pour la pharmacie, et d’autres parties prenantes clés. Le sondage a été transmis par voie électronique, en anglais et en français, aux pharmaciens canadiens grâce aux organismes de pharmacie provinciaux et nationaux (l’enquête a eu lieu du 15 janvier au 12 février 2015). Cette analyse secondaire a porté sur le sous-ensemble des données relatives aux pharmaciens d’hôpitaux. Des analyses de régression logistique multivaria - ble ont été réalisées afin d’offrir un portrait des répondants qui sont partisans d’un mécanisme de certification et de ceux qui ont signalé leur intention d’obtenir la certification si un processus canadien était mis en place. Résultats : Au total, on a obtenu 640 réponses de pharmaciens d’hôpitaux. Près de 85 % des répondants (543/640 [84,8 %]) appuyaient un mécanisme formel de certification pour la spécialisation en pharmacie et plus de 70 % (249/349 [71,3 %]) ont indiqué leur intention d’obtenir une certification de spécialiste si un processus canadien était mis en place. Les répondants croyaient que les principaux obstacles au développement d’un tel système étaient l’absence de modèles de remboursement, le temps nécessaire et l’ignorance du public en matière de spécialités en pharmacie. Selon eux, un processus de certification optimal reposerait principalement sur une définition uniforme de la pratique spécialisée pour les pharmaciens et une reconnaissance systématique de la pratique spécialisée pour les pharmaciens partout au Canada. Une régression multiple a montré que les répondantes étaient plus enclines à appuyer un processus formel de certification (risque relatif approché [RRA] de 2,6, intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % de 1,2–5,7). De plus, les répondants déjà spécialisés en pharmacothérapie étaient plus susceptibles d’être partisans d’une certification obligatoire (RRA de 2,6, IC à 95 % de 1,1–6,1). Conclusions : Les pharmaciens d’hôpitaux ayant répondu à ce sondage appuyaient presque tous un mécanisme de certification pour la spécialisation en pharmacie au Canada. Par contre, certaines questions demeurent à propos de la viabilité d’un système de spécialisation en pharmacie au Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207