MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301733277 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.3208

Clinical Pharmacy Services in Ambulatory Oncology: An Environmental Scan of the Canadian Practice Landscape

2022· article· en· W4301733277 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bryanna Tibensky, Lauren Hutton, Jason Wentzell, Michael LeBlanc, Scott Edwards, Thomas McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandExtendicare (Canada)Horizon Health NetworkBeatrice Hunter Cancer Research InstituteCentre for Family MedicineUniversity of Waterloo
FundersGlaxoSmithKlinePurdue UniversityAstraZenecaPfizer
KeywordsPharmacyAmbulatoryPharmacy practiceMedicineClinical pharmacyMedical physicsFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Canadian clinical pharmacy key performance indicators (cpKPIs) have been developed for inpatient hospital practice but are not established for ambulatory oncology. This study represents the first step in developing cpKPIs for ambulatory oncology. Objectives: To describe the current landscape of pharmacy services in ambulatory oncology in Canada and to identify perspectives related to the development and implementation of cpKPIs in this practice setting. Methods: In this national cross-sectional study, a web-based questionnaire was distributed to pharmacists working in ambulatory oncology settings. Potential participants who self-identified as pharmacists practising in an ambulatory oncology setting were eligible. Survey questions focused on participants’ demographic characteristics, oncology pharmacy services provided, metrics captured, and pharmacists’ perceptions of cpKPIs. All data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 44 responses were received, with most respondents practising in community hospitals in British Columbia, Ontario, and Atlantic Canada. The services most commonly provided were chemotherapy order verification, laboratory monitoring, identification and resolution of drug therapy problems, and counselling on anticancer medications. Twenty-six of the 44 respondents (59%) indicated that performance metrics or patient outcomes were tracked at their respective institutions, with none being universally captured. Overall, 43 (98%) of the respondents favoured the development of cpKPIs for ambulatory oncology practice. Conclusions: Despite growing patient care needs in ambulatory oncology, there is significant heterogeneity in the scope of pharmacy services offered and the outcomes used to qualify their impact within this setting across Canada. This study demonstrates a clear need for national consensus cpKPIs to inform pharmacy resource utilization and patient-centred quality improvement initiatives. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Des indicateurs clés de performance de la pharmacie clinique canadienne (cpKPI) ont été élaborés pour la pratique hospitalière en milieu hospitalier, mais n’ont pas été définis pour l’oncologie ambulatoire. Cette étude constitue la première étape de l’élaboration de cpKPI pour l’oncologie ambulatoire. Objectifs : Décrire le paysage actuel des services pharmaceutiques en oncologie ambulatoire au Canada et cerner les perspectives liées au développement et à la réalisation de cpKPI dans ce contexte de pratique. Méthodes : Dans cette étude transversale nationale, un questionnaire en ligne a été distribué aux pharmaciens qui travaillent en oncologie ambulatoire. Les participants potentiels qui se sont identifiés comme des pharmaciens exerçant dans ce contexte étaient autorisés à participer. Les questions de l’étude portaient sur les caractéristiques démographiques des participants, les services de pharmacie offerts en oncologie, les paramètres saisis et les perceptions des pharmaciens à l’égard des cpKPI. Toutes les données ont été analysées à l’aide de statistiques descriptives. Résultats : Au total, 44 réponses ont été reçues, la plupart des répondants exerçant dans des hôpitaux communautaires de la Colombie-Britannique, de l’Ontario et du Canada atlantique. Les services les plus couramment fournis étaient : la vérification des ordonnances de chimiothérapie, la surveillance en laboratoire, l’identification et la résolution des problèmes de pharmacothérapie et les conseils portant sur les médicaments anticancéreux. Vingt-six des 44 répondants (59 %) ont indiqué que les indicateurs de performance ou les résultats pour les patients faisaient l’objet d’un suivi dans leurs établissements respectifs, bien qu’aucun ne soit universellement saisi. Dans l’ensemble, 43 répondants (98 %) étaient favorables à l’élaboration de cpKPI pour la pratique de l’oncologie ambulatoire. Conclusions : Malgré les besoins croissants des patients en oncologie ambulatoire, la portée des services pharmaceutiques offerts et les résultats utilisés pour qualifier leur effet dans ce contexte au Canada sont fortement hétérogènes. Cette étude démontre un besoin évident de consensus portant sur les cpKPI à l’échelle nationale pour éclairer l’utilisation des ressources pharmaceutiques et les initiatives d’amélioration de la qualité centrées sur le patient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.857
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.017
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207