Perspectives of hospital pharmacists on quality improvement initiatives in patient care: A pilot study from one healthcare system in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Quality Improvement (QI) is any systematic process that seeks to improve patient safety or clinical effectiveness in healthcare. Although hospital pharmacists positively contribute to QI initiatives, there is no information available regarding Canadian hospital pharmacists' involvement and perspectives with QI. Objectives: The primary objective of the study was to describe the QI experiences (including attitudes, enablers and barriers) of hospital pharmacists employed by the Lower Mainland Pharmacy Services (LMPS) in British Columbia. Methods: This research study used an exploratory cross-sectional survey. A 30-item survey was developed to measure QI experiences of hospital pharmacists including prior QI experiences, their attitudes towards pursuing QI initiatives, and their perceived enablers and barriers to participating in QI initiatives in hospital settings. Results: Forty-one pharmacists responded (response rate of 14%). Thirty-eight participants (93%) indicated that they were familiar with the concept of QI. All participants (100%) reported that it was important for pharmacists to be involved with QI despite the general lack of formal QI training among the participants, and 40 participants (98%) agreed that QI was necessary to advance patient care. Moreover, 21 participants (51%) showed interest in leading QI initiatives, while 29 (71%) would participate in QI initiatives. Participants identified several individual and organizational barriers that hindered hospital pharmacists from pursuing QI initiatives. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that hospital pharmacists in LMPS would like to be actively involved with QI initiatives; however, individual and organizational barriers must be addressed in order to facilitate widespread adoption of QI practices.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".