4CPS-400 The role and value of a ward based pharmacist in the intensive care unit: the critical care physicians’ and nurses’ perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background and importance</h3> Patients hospitalised within the intensive care unit (ICU) are prescribed almost twice as many medications compared with patients hospitalised within other areas of the hospital. This increases the likelihood of possible drug interactions as well as medication errors.<sup>1</sup> <h3>Aim and objectives</h3> The aim of this study was to assess the expected role and perceived value of a ward based pharmacist in the ICU, as deemed by critical care physicians and nurses at an acute general teaching hospital prior to the introduction of the service. <h3>Material and methods</h3> The pre-service questionnaires developed by Portelli (2018), targeting nurses and physicians, respectively, were adapted to portray the requirements of a critical care setting and validated for content by an expert panel. The validated tools were disseminated among ICU based physicians and nurses. The responses obtained were analysed descriptively and by content analysis. <h3>Results</h3> The vast majority of nurses gave a score of 4 or higher on a 5 point Likert scale (with 5=essential) when asked whether they felt there was a need for an inhouse pharmacist in the ICU. Similarly, the majority of physicians gave a score of 4 or higher on the same 5 point Likert scale when posed the same question. <h3>Conclusion and relevance</h3> The delivery of direct, proactive, patient centred care by pharmacists has been correlated with both actual and perceived improvement in patient outcomes.<sup>2 3</sup> Most of the respondents were positive that the presence of a pharmacist in the ICU would improve the outcomes for patient safety and better quality care. <h3>References and/or acknowledgements</h3> Richter A, Bates I, Thacker M, <i>et al</i>. Impact of the introduction of a specialist critical care pharmacist on the level of pharmaceutical care provided to the critical care unit. <i>Int J Pharm Pract</i> 2016;<b>24</b>:253–61. Preslaski CR, Lat I, MacLaren R, <i>et al</i>. Pharmacist contributions as members of the multidisciplinary ICU team. <i>Chest</i> 2013;<b>144</b>:1687–95. Mailman JF, Semchuk W. Pharmacists’ roles in critical care: Environmental scan of current practices in Canadian intensive care units. <i>Can J Hosp Pharm</i> 2018;<b>71</b>:215–16. <h3>Conflict of interest</h3> No conflict of interest
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".