Expanding Pharmacists' Scope of Practice to Include Immunization in Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Act to Amend Chapter 36 of the Acts of 2001, the Pharmacy Act (Bill 7) received Royal Assent in Nova Scotia, including an amendment that enabled an expanded scope of pharmacy practice.Expanding pharmacists' scope of practice came about from recommendations by various federal and provincial government bodies as an attempt to improve accessibility to health care and decrease costs.In 2013, pharmacists in Nova Scotia began administering the influenza vaccine as part of the publicly funded program in attempts to improve vaccine coverage rates.Preliminary evaluation in Nova Scotia has shown an increase in influenza vaccination coverage.Although pharmacist administration of influenza vaccination may improve vaccination coverage and reduce demand on physician time, there may be tension created among the professions, which needs to be addressed and managed.La modification des lois qui concernent les professions de santé réglementées, An Act to Amend Chapter 36 of the Acts of 2001, the Pharmacy Act (Loi 7), a été sanctionée en Nouvelle-Écosse le 10 Décembre, 2010.Un de ces changements législatif avait pu renforcer l'élargissement du practique des pharmaciens en Nouvelle-Écosse.Grâce a la conseil de plusieurs groupes gouvernementale, Fédérale et Provinciale, cette élargissement de practique essaient a diminuer le coût et ameliorer l'accessibilité du système de santé.En 2013, les pharmaciens en Nouvelle-Écosse ont commencé d'administrer le vaccin antigrippal gratuitement au public, pour augmenter le taux d'immunisation contre la grippe dans le province.Une évaluation préliminaire a démontré l'augmentation des taux d'immunisation en Nouvelle-Ecosse.Bien que l'administration du vaccin contre la grippe pourrait améliorer la couvrage vaccinale et reduire le temps des médecins, il pourrait aussi crée des tensions entre les professions medicaux, qui doit être addresser et gérer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".