Community pharmacists: members or bystanders of the primary care multidisciplinary team?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated who community pharmacists (CPs), general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs) included in their multidisciplinary team (MDT), whether they felt part of the MDT, barriers and facilitators to multidisciplinary working and whether the extent of the CPs’ clinical role influenced being part of a MDT. Survey to CPs, GPs and PNs in south England. Participants were recruited using social media, journal ads and face-to-face visits/phone calls using NHS and professional networks. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses and content analysis for open text. Two hundred and fourteen GPs, 147 PNs and 162 CPs responded. Nearly, all PNs (98%) and GPs (99%) considered themselves part of a MDT compared to 78% of CPs. Working in isolation, lack of time and a lack of information sharing were the most common reasons for not feeling part of a MDT. The extent of the CPs’ clinical role was not related to feeling part of a MDT. Greater investment is needed in the structures to support multidisciplinary working in terms of time and resources, as well as a greater awareness of MDT members’ roles and potential contribution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".