Dépenses des départements de pharmacie en établissement de santé au Québec – données du rapport financier AS-471 de 2014-2015 à 2018-2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectif : Decrire l’evolution des depenses des departements de pharmacie en etablissement de sante au Quebec selon le rapport financier AS471 de 2014-2015 a 2018-2019. Description de la problematique : Afin d’assurer le bon usage des medicaments, les chefs de departements de pharmacie effectuent periodiquement des analyses financieres comparatives, en mettant en parallele les depenses de l’exercice financier en cours avec celles des periodes et des annees precedentes, mais egalement en confrontant leur departement avec ceux d’autres etablissements de sante. Il n’existe aucune analyse globale des depenses en pharmacie publiee au cours des dernieres annees. Resolution de la problematique : A partir des extraits de donnees disponibles sur le web sur les rapports f inanciers (AS-471) du ministere de la Sante et des Services sociaux entre 2014 et 2019, nous avons extrait l’ensemble des lignes de donnees et les avons regroupees dans une base de donnees. Alors que les depenses globales etaient relativement stables de 2014-2015 a 2016-2017, on note une hausse importante au cours des deux derniers exercices (principalement due aux medicaments). En 2018-2019, les cinq secteurs representant les couts unitaires les plus eleves entre la composante medicament et l’unite de mesure sont l’hemato-oncologie en milieu ambulatoire (1023,23 $ CA / visites de traitement), les soins intensifs en hospitalisation (665,50 $ CA / admission), les soins specialises aux nouveau-nes en hospitalisation (372,32 $ CA / admission), l’hematologie-oncologie en hospitalisation (234,61 $ CA / admission), les soins medicaux et chirurgicaux en hospitalization (191,62 $ CA / admission). Conclusion : Cette etude decrit l’evolution des depenses des departements de pharmacie en etablissement de sante au Quebec selon le rapport financier AS-471 de 2014-2015 a 2018-2019. Bien que les depenses de la pharmacie ne representent que 4,15 % des depenses de l’ensemble des etablissements de sante du Quebec, elles continuent de croitre a un rythme rapide. Dans la perspective de l’implantation du cout par parcours de soins et service, les chefs de departements de pharmacie doivent faire en sorte que les donnees publiees dans le rapport financier de leur etablissement soient de qualite. Objective: To describe the changes in Quebec institutional pharmacy departments’ expenditures based on the AS-471 financial reports from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019. Problem description: To ensure proper medication use, pharmacy department heads periodically conduct comparative financial analyses by comparing expenditures for the current fiscal year with those of previous periods and years, but also by comparing their department with those at other health-care facilities. No comprehensive analysis of pharmacy expenditures in Quebec has been published in recent years. Problem resolution: Using the data extracts available on the Internet on the Ministere de la Sante et des Services sociaux’s 2014 to 2019 financial reports (AS-471), we extracted all the data lines and grouped them together in a database. While overall expenditures were relatively stable from 2014-2015 to 2016-2017, there was a significant increase during the past two fiscal years (mainly due to drugs). In 2018-2019, the five areas with the highest unit costs between the drug component and the unit of measure were ambulatory hematology-oncology (CDN$1023.23/treatment visit), inpatient critical care (CDN$665.50/admission), inpatient specialized neonatal care (CDN$372.32/admission), inpatient hematology-oncology (CDN$234.61/admission), and inpatient medical and surgical care (CDN$191.62/admission). Conclusion: This study describes the changes in spending by Quebec’s institutional pharmacy departments based on the 2014-2015 to 2018-2019 AS-471 financial reports. Although pharmacy expenditures account for only 4.15% of the expenditures in all of Quebec’s health-care facilities, they continue to increase at a rapid pace. In view of the implementation of the cost per care and service pathway, pharmacy department heads must ensure that the data published in their institution’s financial report are of high quality.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".