The Role of the Pharmacist in Palliative Care: Results of a Survey Conducted in Australia and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A survey was conducted to determine what pharmaceutical services are provided to palliative care sites in Australia and Canada, and the pharmacist's role on the interdisciplinary team. Questionnaires were sent to 100 selected sites in each country. Questions pertained to demographics and the level of duties performed. Australian 42/76 (55.3%) and Canadian 59/69 (85.5%) sites employed palliative care pharmacists. Most Australians (83.3%) and Canadians (69.8%) worked under 20 hours/week on the palliative care service. Administrative duties and basic drug supply functions were more common in Australia, whilst Canadians had greater participation in team meetings and rounds. Medication review was the most common clinical duty; approximately 70% of respondents in each country provided specific advice on pharmacotherapy, administration, treatment, adverse effects, and incompatibilities. Education was universally important, but active participation in conferences, publication, and research was infrequent. Pharmacists in both Australia and Canada are important members of the palliative care team, and provide a similar high level of unique and valuable services to patients and their families.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".