Managing common ambulatory conditions: Exploring clinical decision making performance between pharmacists and family physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prescribing is part of the expanded scope of practice for pharmacists in Alberta, Canada. Given these responsibilities, clinical decision making (the outcome from the diagnostic and therapeutic decision making process) is an essential skill for pharmacists. The current study compared diagnostic and therapeutic decision-making between Additional Prescribing Authority (APA) pharmacists and family physicians using a set of common ambulatory clinical cases that both practitioners could encounter in the community as part of their daily practice. Objectives: To explore clinical decision making performance and behaviors between APA pharmacists and family physicians during the assessment and prescribing of common ambulatory conditions. Methods: Eight written ambulatory clinical cases were developed by a panel of experts in both family medicine and pharmacy that were commonly encountered in both professions' daily practice. Participating APA pharmacists and family physicians reviewed the cases and responded with likely diagnoses, recommended treatments, and reported confidence in therapeutic choices. The responses of 18 APA pharmacists and 9 family physicians in community practices were analyzed. Results: There were no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy, therapeutic accuracy, confidence in diagnostic choices, and confidence in therapeutic choices between APA pharmacists and family physicians to these common ambulatory presentations. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary insights regarding the capabilities of pharmacists in the assessment of common ambulatory community conditions and suggests that APA pharmacists are making similar diagnostic and therapeutic decisions to family physicians. Future research could focus on examining the performance of pharmacists trained in different pharmacy education models, as well as their ability to provide clinical assessment in other specialties, or in more uncommon clinical scenarios.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".