MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766004215 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v70i5.1697

Program to Manage New and Expensive Drugs in Pediatrics: Profile of a New Drug Policy and a 12-Month Descriptive Study

2017· article· en· W2766004215 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jennifer Corny, Camille Cotteret, Élaine Pelletier, Philippe Ovetchkine, Jean‐François Bussières

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrugDescriptive researchDescriptive statisticsMedicinePharmacologyFamily medicineSociologyStatisticsSocial scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background: With growing financial pressure and the range of new and expensive drugs, hospital administrators, clinicians, and pharmacy directors are facing tough decisions on how to manage drug budgets. At a Canadian mother–child hospital, a policy for new and expensive drugs was developed, with the goal of managing their use and costs. Objectives: To describe the development and implementation of a policy for new and expensive drugs in a mother-child teaching hospital and to describe the profile of requests for these therapies over a 12-month period. Methods: A brainstorming session was conducted with members of the pharmacy and therapeutics committee to define the criteria for new and expensive drugs at the study hospital and a new process to evaluate requests for these drugs. Over the 12-month period following implementation of the policy, all requests for new and expensive drugs were evaluated through collection and analysis of relevant data. Results: The new drug policy was launched on October 1, 2014. Over the following 12-month period, a total of 58 requests for new and expensive drugs were discussed, but only 47 request forms were completed and signed by a physician and a clinical pharmacist. Conclusions: New and expensive drugs represent a challenge for clinicians and hospital stakeholders. This study illustrates the implementation of a new policy for these drugs in a mother–child teaching hospital over a 12-month period. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Les budgets de plus en plus serrés et la gamme de médicaments nouveaux ou coûteux placent les administrateurs, les cliniciens et les directeurs de pharmacie des hôpitaux devant des décisions difficiles en ce qui touche la gestion des dépenses en médicaments. On a mis au point, dans un hôpital canadien mère-enfant, une politique concernant les médicaments nouveaux ou coûteux avec pour objectif de gérer leur utilisation et leurs coûts. Objectifs : Décrire l’élaboration et la mise en place d’une politique sur les médicaments nouveaux ou coûteux dans un hôpital universitaire mère-enfant et décrire le profil des demandes pour ces pharmacothérapies sur une période de 12 mois. Méthodes : Les membres du comité de pharmacologie ont procédé à une séance de remue-méninges dans le but de définir les critères pour les médicaments nouveaux ou coûteux dans l’hôpital à l’étude et un nouveau processus servant à évaluer les demandes pour ces médicaments. Au cours des 12 mois suivant la mise en place de la politique, toutes les demandes pour des médicaments nouveaux ou coûteux ont été évaluées à l’aide d’une cueillette et d’une analyse de données pertinentes. Résultats : La nouvelle politique sur les médicaments a été lancée le 1er octobre 2014. Au cours des 12 mois suivants, un total de 58 demandes pour des médicaments nouveaux ou coûteux ont été analysées, mais seulement 47 formulaires de demande ont été remplis et signés par un médecin et un pharmacien clinicien. Conclusions : Les médicaments nouveaux ou coûteux représentent un défi pour les cliniciens et les parties prenantes des hôpitaux. La présente étude décrit la mise en place d’une nouvelle politique pour ces médicaments dans un hôpital universitaire mère-enfant sur une période de 12 mois.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.329 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207