A Community Outreach Blood Pressure Clinic: Experiential practice site for pharmacy and dental hygiene students trained in physical assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The application of skills in physical assessment is recognised as an important part of providing pharmaceutical care. However, the number of quality experiential opportunities for pharmacy students to practice these skills is currently limited. Objective: To describe the implementation and evaluation of a Community Outreach Blood Pressure Clinic for pharmacy and dental hygiene students. Procedures: Three blood pressure clinics were designed to provide a unique learning environment for pharmacy and dental hygiene students to practice their skills in physical assessment. A 5-point Likert scale and open comments were used to measure student’s confidence, comfort, and knowledge on performing a blood pressure reading on a patient. To evaluate the impact of the clinic on the community, participant satisfaction and the proportion of individuals who have not had a blood pressure reading in the previous year were also captured. Results: All participants reported being satisfied or very satisfied about the blood pressure clinic. Among the participants, 18 (56%), 19 (35%), and 30 (54%) did not recall or know what their typical blood pressure reading was at the College of Pharmacy, Community Centre, and Residential Home, respectively. The percentage of students that agreed or strongly agreed to feeling confident (44/46 or 96% vs. 12/18 or 67%, p <0.05), comfortable (44/46 or 96% vs. 13/18 or 72%, p <0.05), and knowledgeable (45/46 or 98% vs. 14/18 or 79%, p <0.05) about performing a physical assessment of vitals on a patient was higher after the experiential site than after the online module, respectively. No differences in responses between pharmacy and dental hygiene students were observed. Conclusions: This study suggests that a Community Outreach Blood Pressure Clinic provided a satisfactory experience for students to apply their skills in performing a blood pressure reading and assessment. Student reported confidence was improved after the experiential exposure compared to the practice lab and online module. Findings from this study will be used to improve existing experiential programs related to the advancement of skills in physical assessment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
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".