Determinants of community pharmacists’ quality of care: a population-based cohort study using pharmacy administrative claims data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if a prototype pharmacists' services evaluation programme that uses linked community pharmacy claims and health administrative data to measure pharmacists' performance can be used to identify characteristics of pharmacies providing higher quality of care. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study using community pharmacy claims from 1 November 2009 to 30 June 2010. SETTING: All community pharmacies in Quebec, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 1742 pharmacies dispensing 8 655 348 antihypertensive prescriptions to 760 700 patients. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient adherence to antihypertensive medications. PREDICTORS: Pharmacy level: dispensing workload, volume of pharmacist-provided professional services (eg, refusals to dispense, pharmacotherapy recommendations), pharmacy location, banner/chain, pharmacist overlap and within-pharmacy continuity of care. Patient level: sex, age, income, patient prescription cost, new/chronic therapy, single/multiple antihypertensive medications, single/multiple prescribers and single/multiple dispensing pharmacies. Dispensing level: prescription duration, time of day dispensed and antihypertensive class. Multivariate alternating logistic regression estimated predictors of the primary outcome, accounting for patient and pharmacy clustering. RESULTS: 9.2% of dispensings of antihypertensive medications were provided to non-adherent patients. Male sex, decreasing age, new treatment, multiple prescribers and multiple dispensing pharmacies were risk factors for increased non-adherence. Pharmacies that provided more professional services were less likely to dispense to non-adherent hypertensive patients (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.62) as were those with better scores on the Within-Pharmacy Continuity of Care Index. Neither increased pharmacists' services for improving antihypertensive adherence per se nor increased pharmacist overlap impacted the odds of non-adherence. However, pharmacist overlap was strongly correlated with dispensing workload. There was significant unexplained variability among pharmacies belonging to different banners and chains. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy administrative claims data can be used to calculate pharmacy-level characteristics associated with improved quality of care. This study supports the importance of pharmacist's professional services and continuity of pharmacist's care.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".