Clinical outcomes and satisfaction with a pharmacist-managed travel clinic in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Alberta, Canada, authorized pharmacists may prescribe medications and vaccines and administer injections. Some have implemented travel clinics to meet the growing demand for pre-travel consultations. As a new service, the outcomes of independent pharmacist-performed pre-travel consultations is unknown. METHODS: Chart review and post-travel surveys were performed among a convenience sample of patients presenting to a pharmacist-managed travel clinic for consultation. Data collected included patients' travel plans, recommendations for vaccines and other prescription and non-prescription drugs and adherence to these recommendations, satisfaction with the service, and health issues experienced during travel. RESULTS: 103 patients participated in the study. The overwhelming majority (79%) of recommended vaccinations were administered in clinic. The post-travel questionnaire was completed by 76% of patients, with 94% of these reporting being satisfied or very satisfied with the care received. Health issues during travel were infrequent, with gastrointestinal illness most common. Of those patients who experienced any health issue during their trip, 93% felt adequately prepared to manage the condition. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports positive patient satisfaction and health status while travelling following a pharmacist-performed pre-travel consultation including authorization to prescribe and to administer vaccines. These results support the continued expansion of pharmacists' scope in this area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".