Full scope of practice is vital for rural health care: Student experience in Peace River
Bibliographic record
Abstract
About a year ago, we set off on a 41-hour-long car ride from Ottawa to a rural town in northern Alberta called Peace River to start our final cooperative education term.This would be the beginning of an unforgettable and life-changing adventure, where our eyes were opened to the true potential of the pharmacy profession.For many years, rural health care has been facing an ongoing crisis.Doctor shortages, emergency room closures, lack of funding and scarce resources threaten the health of community members.With the addition of a global pandemic, burnout and overworked health care providers, the crisis has been rapidly exacerbated.Although pharmacy can often be overlooked, pharmacists play a vital role in improving patient outcomes and have the potential to be a part of the solution for this crisis.As pharmacy students, we read about these issues in our textbooks and listen to our professors tell us stories about the current challenges.However, in order to fully understand the disparities that affect rural communities, we felt that there was no better way to learn than by living it first-hand.We made the decision to move to Peace River, to work in a community pharmacy under a pharmacist with advanced prescribing authority (APA) during our final work-term placement.Our 4 short months in Peace River were extremely eye-opening, challenging and yet one of the most rewarding opportunities we've experienced.It confirmed for us that rural pharmacy professionals are key to increasing accessibility and equity within rural communities and that interprofessional collaboration and being able to work to a full scope of practice are crucial to the health care system.It also showed us that advocacy is a powerful tool that all pharmacists must engage in to better patient outcomes, the pharmacy profession and the Canadian health care system.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.005 |
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".