MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748702461 · doi:10.5863/1551-6776-22.4.246

A Pilot Project for Clinical Pharmacy Services in a Clinic for Children With Medical Complexity

2017· article· en· W2748702461 on OpenAlexaff
J Tjon, Lori Chen, B. Michael, Jennifer Poh, Marina Strzelecki

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacyClinical pharmacyMedicineMedical educationFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the project was to assess the impact of clinical pharmacy services in a clinic for children with medical complexity. Secondary objectives were to identify and characterize the drug-related needs of these patients and to describe and develop the role of a pharmacist in the clinic. METHODS: This was a prospective descriptive study in which a clinical pharmacist staffed the clinic for children with medical complexity for 11 weeks, from January to March 2011. This allowed for the collection of baseline data, such as patient characteristics and measurements of pharmacist workload and assessment (eg, types of drug therapy problems, medication reconciliation, medication teaching). RESULTS: A pharmacist participated in 46 clinic visits with 43 patients, identifying a total of 42 drug therapy problems. Of the 42 problems, 35 actual and 7 potential drug problems were identified, resulting in approximately 1 problem per patient. The most common actual problems included "dose too small" (37.1%) and "patient requires a medication for untreated condition" (20%). Common potential problems included "drug interactions" (43%) and "adverse effects" (57%). CONCLUSIONS: The pilot study demonstrates that children with medical complexity are at high risk for drug therapy problems and the presence of a clinic pharmacist is beneficial in the identification, prevention, and resolution of drug therapy problems, while helping ensure continuity of care in this population.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.385
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and TherapeuticsSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207