Impact of Pharmacist Interventions in an Ambulatory Geriatric Care Clinic: The IMPACC Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of a pharmacist's presence for the detection of drug-related problems (DRP) in an interdisciplinary geriatric-ambulatory clinic with a control group without a pharmacist.<br/> DESIGN: Retrospective quasi-experimental study.<br/> SETTING: A geriatric ambulatory-care clinic of a 772-bed tertiary-care teaching hospital in Montreal, Canada.<br/> PARTICIPANTS: A total of 227 ambulatory patients 65 years of age and older presenting to their appointment at the geriatric ambulatory clinic between May 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019.<br/> MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): DRP detected by the interdisciplinary team during the patient evaluation process. Data were collected from clinical notes written by the health care professionals in the electronic medical chart.<br/> RESULTS: The mean age was 80.8 years, and 60.8% of the population were female. Patients were prescribed a mean of 11.3 medications at home. Overall, 636 DRP were detected in the study population. In the adjusted analysis, the difference between the two groups was 2.7 (95% confidence interval 2.0-3.3) DRP detected favoring the group with a pharmacist.<br/> CONCLUSION: The inclusion of a pharmacist in an interdisciplinary team in an ambulatory geriatric-care clinic was associated to a positive impact on care by substantially increasing the number of DRP detected in older patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".