Implementation of a pharmacist skill development “work-with” program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pharmacists' clinical competency is necessary to ensure patient safety and medication optimization. There are many barriers to the implementation of competency assessments and scant literature on their implementation. We aimed to determine if a competency assessment program for hospital pharmacists is feasible, acceptable, and effective. METHODS: Clinical competency assessments of hospital pharmacists were conducted. During the assessments, pharmacists presented a patient case or completed patient care activities while a leadership team member evaluated them using a competency rubric and provided feedback. A postevaluation electronic survey adapted from validated tools regarding perceptions of program feasibility and acceptability was emailed to the pharmacists following each competency assessment and to evaluators at study conclusion. Feasibility was also measured through reviewing rubrics for completion within the 1.5- to 2-hour assessment timeframe. Effectiveness was captured by comparing results to expected competency levels based on experience. RESULTS: In total, 20 assessments were completed. Fifty percent of assessments required longer than the allotted timeframe. Most participants surveyed found the competency assessments implementable, possible, doable, and easy to use. The majority also approved of the implemented assessments and found them appealing, likable, and welcomed and commented that they aided in professional development. For 50% of the competencies assessed, most participants aligned with competency expectations based on years of experience. CONCLUSION: The implementation of these competency assessments was found to be feasible and acceptable to hospital pharmacists. The rubric used was found to be moderately effective. Major implementation barriers were related to time constraints and criteria for success. Future work will be done to enhance the program's effectiveness.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".