Insights into British Columbian Hospital Pharmacists Perspectives on the Discharge Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Transitions of care represent a vulnerable time for patients where unintended therapeutic changes are common and inadequate communication of information frequently results in medication errors. Pharmacists have a large impact on the success of patients during these care transitions; however, their role and experiences are largely absent from the literature. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to gain a greater understanding of British Columbian hospital pharmacists’ perceptions of the hospital discharge process and their role in it. Methods: A qualitative study utilizing focus groups and key informant interviews of British Columbian hospital pharmacists was conducted from April to May 2021. Questions asked during interviews were developed following a detailed literature search and included questions regarding the use of frequently studied interventions. Interview sessions were transcribed and then thematically analyzed using both NVivo software and manual coding. Results: Three focus groups with a total of 20 participants and one key informant interview were conducted. Six themes were identified through data analysis: (1) overall perspectives; (2) important roles of pharmacists in discharges; (3) patient education; (4) barriers to optimal discharges; (5) solutions to current barriers; and (6) prioritization. Conclusions and Relevance: Pharmacists play a vital role in patient discharges but due to limited resources and inadequate staffing models they are often unable to be optimally involved. Understanding the thoughts and perceptions of pharmacists on the discharge process can help us better allocate limited resources to ensure patients receive optimal care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".