Exploring the Professional Identity of Hospital Pharmacists in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pharmacists lack a cohesive professional identity, with only limited previous research on the formation of a professional identity for pharmacy. In particular, there is sparse information on the professional identity of pharmacists who practise in hospital settings. Objectives: To determine hospital pharmacists’ professional identity and the characteristics of an ideal pharmacist and ideal practice setting. Methods: This qualitative study used key informant interviews with semistructured questions. A maximum variation sampling strategy was used to recruit a cross-section of pharmacists from different geographic areas of British Columbia who were practising in a variety of roles. The interviews were transcribed and then analyzed thematically. Results: Nineteen pharmacists participated in the study. Seven themes pertaining to hospital pharmacists’ professional identity were generated, specifically medication expert, therapy optimizer, collaborator, educator, researcher, patient advocate, and unknown professional. Similarities were found with personas previously identified in a population of primarily community pharmacists. The ideal pharmacist was described as being a medication expert, a collaborator, and a leader. The ideal practice setting was characterized as being adequately funded and allowing pharmacists to practise to their full scope. Conclusions: Hospital pharmacists’ professional identity is based on being a medication expert who is seen as an essential member of a collaborative team. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Les pharmaciens manquent d’une identité professionnelle cohérente et les recherches antérieures portant sur la formation d’une identité professionnelle de la profession sont limitées. En particulier, les informations sur l’identité professionnelle des pharmaciens exerçant en milieu hospitalier sont rares. Objectif : Déterminer l’identité professionnelle des pharmaciens d’hôpitaux ainsi que les caractéristiques d’un pharmacien idéal et d’un milieu d’exercice idéal. Méthodes : Pour cette étude qualitative, des questions d’entretien semi-structurées ont été utilisées auprès d’informateurs clés. Une stratégie d’échantillonnage à variation maximale a été utilisée pour recruter un échantillon représentatif de pharmaciens de différentes régions géographiques de la Colombie-Britannique pratiquant divers rôles. Les entretiens ont ensuite été retranscrits puis analysés par thème. Résultats : Dix-neuf pharmaciens ont participé à l’étude. Sept thèmes relatifs à l’identité professionnelle des pharmaciens d’hôpitaux se sont dessinés : expert en médicaments, optimisateur thérapeutique, collaborateur, éducateur, chercheur, défenseur des patients et professionnel méconnu. Des similitudes se sont dégagées avec des identités précédemment cernées dans une population constituée principalement de pharmaciens communautaires. Le pharmacien idéal a été décrit comme étant un expert en médicaments, un collaborateur et un leader. Le milieu de pratique idéal a quant à lui été décrit comme un milieu adéquatement financé permettant aux pharmaciens d’exercer pleinement leurs compétences. Conclusions : L’identité professionnelle du pharmacien hospitalier repose sur le fait d’être un expert en médicaments. Cet expert est considéré comme membre essentiel d’une équipe collaborative.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".