Competency framework for hospital pharmacy residency: a scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The training and roles of pharmacists around the world are undergoing drastic changes. In the hospital environment, pharmaceutical care services must incorporate hospital pharmacy management necessities, which must consider the constant technological and process innovations. However, there is a scarcity of studies exploring how pharmacy residency programs real experiences in hospitals can improve these essential competencies. This scoping review allowed an overview of the pharmacy residency programs' competency framework's scientific production in the world. These documents review about training programs in the world showed that U.S. programs have teaching processes that evaluate resident's development to certify the program structure to qualify them. Australian and Canadian studies demonstrated advances in the search for pharmacy residents' qualifications with competency-based curricula. It highlighted that a structured and evidence-based approach to these programs' curricula is required and still has ample space in several countries to improve hospital pharmacists' training through residency programs. The most appropriate is that the programs are evaluated in terms of educational results by measuring residents' involvement by considering the course, tutors, and other program components.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it