Pharmacist—Pharmacy Technician Intraprofessional Collaboration and Workplace Integration: Implications for Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, concerns have been expressed regarding the impact of regulation of pharmacy technicians. After more than a decade of experience with technician regulation in Ontario, Canada, uptake of the full scope of practice for technicians has been sporadic at best. The objective of this study was to examine barriers and facilitators to intraprofessional collaboration between pharmacists and pharmacy technicians for the purpose of identifying possible curricular or educational interventions to enhance workplace integration. A qualitative, interview-based study of 24 pharmacists, technicians, educators, pharmacy managers, and owners was undertaken using a semi-structured interview guide. Key findings of this research include: i) Confirmation of suboptimal utilization of regulated technicians in practice; ii) identification of crucial knowledge and skills gaps for both pharmacists and technicians; and iii) proposals for undergraduate education and training, and continuing professional development learning opportunities to address these gaps. In order to achieve the promise and potential of regulation of pharmacy technicians, system-wide change management-beginning with education-will be required and will benefit from multiple stakeholder engagement and involvement.
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 | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".