The role of the pharmacist in the hospital discharge of cancer patients: an integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with cancer need care from a multidisciplinary team due to the complexity of the clinical picture and proposed treatment. Hospital discharge is a critical step, because pharmacotherapy changes may occur during hospitalization, leading to potential medication-related problems at home. OBJECTIVE: To identify publications which describe the activities performed by the pharmacist at the hospital discharge of patients with cancer. METHOD: This is an integrative systematic literature review. A search was carried out in the MEDLINE databases, via Pubmed, Embase, and Virtual Health Library, using the following descriptors: "Patient Discharge", "Pharmacists", "Neoplasms." Studies that reported activities performed by the pharmacist at the hospital discharge of patients with cancer were included. RESULTS: Five hundred and two studies were identified, of which seven met the eligibility criteria. Most were conducted in the United States (n = 3), and the rest in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, and Italy. Among the services provided by the pharmacist at discharge, medication reconciliation was the most widely described. Other activities such as counseling, education, identification, and resolution of drug-related problems were also carried out. CONCLUSION: In the scenario of hospital discharge of patients with cancer, the participation of pharmacists is still to be seen as of significance in regards to publications. Despite this, the results suggest that the actions of this professional contribute to patient orientation and the safe use of prescription drugs for use at home.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".