Pharmacy Practice in Quebec Emergency Departments: A Survey Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: According to a Canadian survey conducted in 2013, 37 of the 67 Quebec emergency departments (EDs) in hospitals with more than 50 beds reported having a pharmacist within the department. However, based on the 17 responses to the survey, it was not possible to determine patient care services offered by Quebec ED pharmacists, because the data were aggregated across all Canadian respondents. A provincial survey was undertaken to further define ED pharmacy practice within Quebec. Objectives: To measure pharmacist involvement in EDs in the province of Quebec and to describe patient care services and interventions offered by these pharmacists. Methods: A 47-question survey was sent to 33 directors of pharmacy departments, representing 90 hospitals and institutes with EDs in the province of Quebec. The directors of pharmacy were asked to forward the survey to an ED pharmacist for completion or to partially answer the survey themselves if their facilities had no pharmacists practising in the ED. The survey evaluated the presence of pharmacists in the ED, their training, the interventions they performed, and their involvement within the department. The presence and role of ED pharmacy technical staff were also evaluated. Results: Of the 43 completed surveys received, 30 reported at least 1 pharmacist providing patient care within the facility's ED. The most common tasks performed by ED pharmacists were, in decreasing order of frequency, answering questions from the multidisciplinary team, adjusting medications according to patients' allergies or their renal or hepatic function, managing drug interactions, and clarifying prescriptions. Pharmacists also reported teaching pharmacy students and residents and supporting the team in the resuscitation area. Conclusions: The majority of respondents reported having at least 1 pharmacist in the ED. Compared with previous Canadian results, this survey had more respondents from Quebec with better representation of ED pharmacy practice in the province. Patient care services provided by pharmacists were variable, possibly because of a lack of standardized practice guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".