Exploring multi-stakeholder perceptions of practice-related facilitators to optimising the quality of integration of regulated pharmacy technicians in community pharmacy in Ontario: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate multi-stakeholder perceptions of practice-related facilitators to optimising the quality of Regulated Pharmacy Technician (RPT) integration into the community workforce in Ontario. Facilitators to incorporating technicians into the workflow and supporting their optimal scope of practice were explored. METHODS: A qualitative exploratory study comprising a series of one-to-one interviews using a piloted, semi-structured interview guide was conducted with four community pharmacy stakeholder groups; pharmacists, RPTs, pharmacy assistants and pharmacy owners. Interviews were conducted until saturation of themes. Verbatim transcripts were coded inductively using the software, NVivo v12 (QSR International) and general inductive analysis identified key findings. KEY FINDINGS: Twenty-seven interviews were conducted consisting of seven pharmacists, seven RPTs, eight assistants and five pharmacy owners working within community pharmacy and/or academia or hospital. All participants from every stakeholder group acknowledged that the promise of regulation of pharmacy technicians was unfulfilled in practice. Three major themes of practical significance were derived: (i) A viable business plan that incorporates RPT remuneration and ensures sustainability is a facilitator to fuller integration of RPTs, (ii) Planning the pharmacy workflow to support RPTs' and pharmacists' evolving scopes is a facilitator to RPT integration and (iii) Schedule planning to incorporate RPTs and appropriate staffing ratios in relation to prescription volume and pharmacy services allows for optimal utilisation of RPT skills and facilitates their integration. CONCLUSIONS: Achieving integration of RPTs into the business of a community pharmacy has educational, workplace and regulatory implications, requiring the effective engagement of all stakeholders in pharmacy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".