Title: Playing Telephone: Understanding the state of medication decision making in growing healthcare teams in the time of electronic health records (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Primary care needs to be patient-centred, integrated and interprofessional to help patients with complex needs manage the burden of medication-related problems. Considering the growing problem of polypharmacy, there is increasing attention on how and when medication-related decisions should be coordinated across multi-disciplinary care teams. Improved knowledge on how integrated EHRs can support interprofessional shared decision-making for medication therapy management is necessary to continue to improve patient care. OBJECTIVE This objective of this study was to examine how physicians and pharmacists understand and communicate patient-focused medication information with each other and how this knowledge can influence the design of electronic health records. METHODS This study is part of a broader cross-Canada study between patients and health care providers around how health-related decisions are made and communicated. We visited community pharmacies, team-based primary care clinics, and independent-practice family physician clinics throughout Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Quebec. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with physician and pharmacists. A modified version of the Multidisciplinary Framework Method was used to analyze the data. RESULTS Data was collected at 19 pharmacies and 9 medical clinics and we identified six main themes from 34 health care professionals. Interprofessional Shared Decision Making was not occurring and clinicians made decisions based on their understanding of the patient. Physicians and pharmacists reported indirect Communication, incomplete Information specifically missing insight into indication and adherence, and misaligned Processes of Care further compounded by electronic health records not designed to facilitate collaboration. Scope of Practice examined professional and workplace boundaries for pharmacists and physicians that were internally and externally imposed. Physicians decided on the degree of the Physician/Pharmacist Relationship which was often predicated by co-location. CONCLUSIONS When managing medications, there was limited communication and collaboration between primary care providers and pharmacists. Pharmacists were missing key information around reason for use, and physicians required accurate information around adherence. EHRs are a potential tool to help clinicians communicate information to resolve this issue. EHRs need to be designed to facilitate interprofessional medication management, so that pharmacists and physicians move beyond task-based work toward a collaborative approach CLINICALTRIAL n/a
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".