Activities performed by pharmacists integrated in family health teams: Results from a web-based survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Family health teams (FHTs), an interprofessional primary care practice model, were established in Ontario in 2005. As of October 2014, 191 FHT organizations were in operation, and 111 (58%) included one or several pharmacists. The objective of this study was to document the focus of pharmacist activities in FHTs. APPROACH: We invited all 155 known FHT pharmacists to a web-based survey. The survey was constructed using information obtained from previously done semi-structured telephone interviews with pharmacists working in FHTs. The survey consisted of a list of activities, grouped into 5 main categories, and participants were asked to estimate time spent on each category. Free-text response questions allowed participants to identify activities not listed. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and content analysis for open-ended responses. RESULTS: Seventy (45%) pharmacists completed the survey. The mean respondent age was 43 years, and the average length of time working in an FHT was 4 years. All pharmacists reported being engaged in some form of direct patient care, including managing single therapeutic issues (96%), conducting general medication reviews (70%) and medication reconciliation after hospitalization (63%). Most reported providing education and drug information (83%). Pharmacists felt their work would increase patient medication adherence (94%) and physician adherence to recommended guidelines (86%), as well as reduce inappropriate prescribing (93%), polypharmacy (90%), emergency room and hospital utilization (70%-81%). CONCLUSION: Pharmacists in FHTs are strongly focused on direct patient care activities, managing specific medication issues and unstructured drug information to physicians. The majority of pharmacists reported that their activities had a substantial impact on patient medication use and health. The findings from this survey can assist pharmacists new to FHT practice, health policy planning and health research to assess associations between pharmacist activities and measures of health and health care system performance.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".