Clinical Decision Making by Fourth-Year Pharmacy Students: Understanding Their Uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical decision making is a critical process underpinning much of a pharmacist’s daily activities. Pharmacists in Alberta have a scope of practice that includes prescribing medications, and prescribing includes clinical decision making. Ensuring pharmacy education actively prepares students for clinical decision making is therefore a priority. While it is known that pharmacists hesitate to make decisions, it remains unclear whether pharmacy students experience similar hesitancy. Clinical decision making is dependent on many factors, such as knowledge and experience, that need to be considered when investigating hesitancy and uncertainty in decision making by pharmacy students. Adult learning theories of experiential education and reflective practice are applicable to the pedagogy of decision making given that experience is considered a critical influencer in clinical decision making. This study was designed from a social constructivist paradigm using case study methodology. The purpose was to investigate issues related to hesitancy in clinical decision making by fourth-year pharmacy students. Data was collected through observation of students engaging in simulations, post-simulation interviews, and written reflections. Data analysis included multiple stages of coding, followed by pattern identification and discovery of interrelationships. The primary themes relating to issues in pharmacy student clinical decision making were relational factors, teaching and learning, degree of certainty, and personal characteristics. These themes represent elements that affected decision making before the final stage where the students were either willing or unwilling to make a decision. Pharmacy students construct their decision making primarily by using the patient care process, through repeated practice, and by observing role models. Students felt facilitated in their decision making when there were positive relationships with patients and physicians, practise in the skills lab, and development of comfort with ambiguity. Students discussed that strategies for responsible decision making were complex and related to many of the previously mentioned themes. Students struggled with responsibility taking for decisions both throughout the curriculum and in experiential education. Future research plans include investigating how Albertan students compare with those in other jurisdictions and investigating the training of preceptors to include building student comfort with ambiguity by creating education underpinned by adult learning theories of experiential learning.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".