Nurse-pharmacist collaborations for promoting medication safety among community-dwelling adults: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite good evidence that supports improved clinical health outcomes and the cost effectiveness of nurse-pharmacist collaboration for promoting medication safety among adults in acute care settings, there is limited research in community settings. Objective: This scoping review examines, maps, and identifies gaps in the existing literature on nurse-pharmacist collaboration to augment medication safety among community-dwelling adults. Design: Setting(s): Community setting. Participants: This review consists of 3,464 participants across 23 studies. Methods: We used the enhanced Arksey and O'Malley framework by Levac and colleagues. Studies from MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus, and PubMed databases implementing medication safety through nurse-pharmacist collaboration for community-dwelling adults were included. We extracted data according to country of origin, intervention, and relevance to the current review. Results: Twenty-three studies were included in this review. Nurse-pharmacist collaborations in community settings are still evolving and are in a nascent form. Five sub-themes emerged from literature review of collaboration between nurses and pharmacists in community settings for medication safety. They are creating new opportunities to address gaps in community medication safety, enabling complementary interprofessional roles in medication safety, facilitating of efficient and cost-effective measures for medication safety, diverse nature of assessments done by nurses and pharmacists, and incohesive teams due to poor collaborative practices. Conclusions: Nurse-pharmacist collaborations in community settings improved disease management, prevented adverse drug events, and reduced hospitalizations. They resulted in early identification and correction of medication safety related issues, reduced wait periods to see general practitioners, and enhanced chronic disease self-management skills among community-dwelling adults. There is a need to improve existing systems and policies through research for sustaining such collaborations especially in community settings.
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 | 0.014 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".