MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766162398 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v70i5.1696

Provincial Comparison of Pharmacist Prescribing in Canada Using Alberta’s Model as the Reference Point

2017· article· en· W2766162398 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Surya Bhatia, Scot H. Simpson, Tammy J. Bungard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacistPoint (geometry)Family medicineMedicineLibrary scienceComputer sciencePharmacyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p><strong>ABSTRACT</strong></p><p><strong>Background:</strong> In the past decade, pharmacist practice has evolved tremendously in Canada, but the scope of practice varies substantially from one province to another.</p><p><strong>Objective:</strong> To describe pharmacists’ scopes of practice relevant to prescribing within various jurisdictions of Canada, using the prescribing model in Alberta (authors’ province) as the reference point.</p><p><strong>Methods:</strong> This cross-sectional survey consisted of clinical scenarios for emergency prescribing, adapting or renewing a prescription, and initial-access prescribing for a chronic disease. Pharmacists were asked about their ability to administer injections and to order or access the results of laboratory tests, as well as certification and training requirements and reimbursement models.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Thirteen pharmacists representing Canadian provinces other than Alberta were surveyed in late 2015, for comparison with Alberta. With specific reference to the scenarios presented, pharmacists were able to prescribe in an emergency in 9 of the 10 provinces, renew prescriptions in all provinces, and adapt prescriptions in 6 provinces. Three provinces required that pharmacists have collaborative practice agreements identifying a specific practice area in order to initiate a prescription for a chronic disease (with 6–12 pharmacists per province having such agreements). Alberta required pharmacists to have authorization, based on a detailed application, in order to initiate any provincially regulated drug (with about 1150 pharmacists having this authorization). Pharmacists were allowed to administer vaccines in 9 provinces, and 5 provinces allowed pharmacists to administer drugs by injection. Three provinces had systems in place for pharmacists to access laboratory test results, and 2 allowed pharmacists to order laboratory tests. Five provinces had government-reimbursed programs in place for select prescribing services; however, all 9 provinces with public vaccination programs reimbursed pharmacists for this service.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Pharmacist prescribing differs among Canadian provinces. Although most provinces allow emergency prescribing and renewal or adaptation of prescriptions by pharmacists, only 4 provinces allow prescription initiation, with variable criteria and scope. Despite some progress to enhance patient flow through the health care system (e.g., by allowing pharmacists to extend prescriptions), further work should be pursued to harmonize clinical practices across Canada and to enable pharmacists to initiate and manage drug therapy.</p><p><strong>RÉSUMÉ</strong></p><p><strong>Contexte :</strong> Au cours de la dernière décennie, la pratique des pharmaciens a énormément évolué au Canada; or, le champ de pratique est très différent d’une province à l’autre.</p><p><strong>Objectif :</strong> Décrire les champs de pratique des pharmaciens en ce qui touche au droit de prescrire dans les différentes provinces canadiennes en utilisant le modèle de prescription en Alberta (province d’appartenance des auteurs) comme point de référence.</p><p><strong>Méthodes :</strong> La présente enquête transversale s’appuyait sur des scénarios cliniques pour la prescription en situation d’urgence, l’ajustement ou la prolongation d’une ordonnance et la prescription initiale en cas de maladie chronique. On a demandé aux pharmaciens de parler de leur capacité d’administrer des substances injectables; de prescrire des examens de laboratoire ou d’en accéder aux résultats; des exigences en matière de certification et de formation; et des modèles de remboursement.</p><p><strong>Résultats :</strong> Treize pharmaciens représentant les provinces canadiennes autres que l’Alberta ont été sondés à la fin de l’année 2015 pour comparer leurs champs de pratique à celui de l’Alberta. En fonction de détails précis des scénarios préétablis, les pharmaciens étaient en mesure de prescrire en situation d’urgence dans 9 des 10 provinces, de prolonger des ordonnances dans toutes les provinces et d’ajuster des ordonnances dans 6 provinces. Trois provinces exigeaient des pharmaciens qu’ils aient des ententes de pratique en collaboration spécifiant un domaine de pratique afin d’initier une thérapie médicamenteuse en cas de maladie chronique (6 à 12 pharmaciens par province possédaient de telles ententes). L’Alberta exigeait des pharmaciens qu’ils aient une autorisation en fonction d’une demande détaillée pour amorcer un traitement à l’aide d’un médicament réglementé par la province (environ 1 150 pharmaciens détenaient une telle autorisation). Les pharmaciens pouvaient administrer des vaccins dans 9 provinces et des médicaments injectables dans 5 provinces. Trois provinces possédaient des systèmes permettant aux pharmaciens de consulter les résultats d’examens de laboratoire et 2 provinces les autorisaient à prescrire de tels examens. Cinq provinces avaient en place des programmes de remboursement pour certains services de prescription; cependant, les 9 provinces dotées de programmes publics de vaccination remboursaient les pharmaciens pour ce service.</p><p><strong>Conclusions :</strong> Le droit de prescrire des pharmaciens varie d’une province canadienne à l’autre. Bien que la majorité des provinces permettent aux pharmaciens de prescrire en situation d’urgence et de prolonger ou d’ajuster une ordonnance, seules 4 provinces leur permettaient d’initier une thérapie médicamenteuse, et le champ et les critères encadrant cette activité étaient variables. Malgré des progrès visant à améliorer l’accès des patients aux soins et aux services de santé (notamment à l’aide de la prolongation des ordonnances par les pharmaciens), il est nécessaire d’harmoniser davantage les pratiques cliniques dans l’ensemble du Canada et de permettre aux pharmaciens d’amorcer et de gérer la pharmacothérapie.</p>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.250
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207