A De Novo Pharmacist-Family Physician Collaboration Model in a Family Medicine Clinic in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collaborative practice in health-care has proven to be an effective and efficient method for the management of chronic diseases. This study describes a de novo collaborative practice between a pharmacist and a family physician. The primary objective of the study is to describe the collaboration model between a pharmacist and family physician. The secondary objective is to describe the pharmacist workload. A list of patients who had at least one interaction with the pharmacist was generated and printed from the electronic medical record. There were 389 patients on the patient panel. The pharmacist had at least one encounter with 159 patients. There were 83 females. The most common medical condition seen by the pharmacist was hypertension. A total of 583 patient consultations were made by the pharmacist and 219 of those were independent visits. The pharmacist wrote 1361 prescriptions. The expanded scope of practice for pharmacists in Alberta includes additional prescribing authority. The pharmacists' education and clinical experience gained trust from the family physician. These, coupled with the family physician's previous positive experience working with pharmacists made the collaboration achievable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".