How are pharmacists in Ontario adapting to practice change? Results of a qualitative analysis using Kotter’s change management model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pace of practice change in community pharmacy over the past decade has been significant, yet there is little evidence documenting implementation of change in the profession. METHODS: Kotter's change management model was selected as a theoretical framework for this exploratory qualitative study. Community pharmacists were interviewed using a semistructured protocol based on Kotter's model. Data were analyzed and coded using a constant-comparative iterative method aligned with the stages of change management outlined by Kotter. RESULTS: Twelve community pharmacists were interviewed. Three key themes emerged: 1) the profession has successfully established the urgency to, and created a climate conducive for, change; 2) the profession has been less successful in engaging and enabling the profession to actually implement change; and 3) legislative changes (for example, expansion of pharmacists' scope of practice) may have occurred prematurely, prior to other earlier stages of the change process being consolidated. INTERPRETATION: As noted by most participants, allowing change is not implementing change: pharmacists reported feeling underprepared and lacking confidence to actually make change in their practices and believe that more emphasis on practical, specific implementation tactics is needed. CONCLUSIONS: Change management is complex and time and resource intensive. There is a need to provide personalized, detailed, context-specific implementation strategies to pharmacists to allow them to take full advantage of expanded scope of practice.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".