Pharmacy student contribution to direct patient care during inpatient hospital experiential rotations: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review was to identify and characterise pharmacy students' contributions to extend pharmacist's direct patient care during inpatient hospital experiential rotations. METHODS: A search of PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases from 2000 to July 2021 was conducted. Articles were included if they involved pharmacy students during experiential rotations, described student's contribution to direct patient care in the inpatient hospital setting, and reported outcomes. Included articles were categorised according to clinical pharmacy key performance indicators (cpKPIs) and non-cpKPI care activities. Students' contributions to reported outcomes were extracted and summarised. KEY FINDINGS: Thirty-six of 1182 identified articles were included which were either descriptive or quasi-experimental design. Studies reported student involvement in the delivery of single or multiple cpKPIs: medication reconciliation on admission (n = 13), pharmaceutical care (n = 13), interprofessional care rounds (n = 4), patient education during hospital stay (n = 6), medication reconciliation at discharge (n = 7) and patient education at discharge (n = 10). Eight studies reported student involvement in non-cpKPI activities, including clinical interventions (n = 5), clinical services (n = 2) and postdischarge follow-up (n = 1). Reported outcomes included service measure counts, process and clinical outcome measures. SUMMARY: This review identified the contributions of pharmacy students in the provision of a range of direct patient care services and associated outcomes during experiential rotations in the inpatient hospital setting. Students delivering care as part of the pharmacy team as 'care extenders' has the potential to expose more patients to key pharmacist activities that have been linked to demonstrated positive outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".