Flip the Script: Changing Documentation Standards and Establishing Best Practices for Pharmacists in a Primary Care Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Documentation of clinical encounters continues to be a challenge to implement in practice and there is a lack of literature or evidence regarding documentation best practices in pharmacy. In order to inform documentation practices at an academic pharmacy clinic, a quality assurance (QA) initiative was implemented at the UBC Pharmacists Clinic (Clinic). Goals: The goal of this QA initiative was to determine what facilitators and barriers existed for the pharmacists in a primary care setting and improve the efficiency of consultation note writing. Description: Phase 1 conducted an online survey among Clinic pharmacists to assess each clinician’s documentation practice at baseline. Phase 2 implemented new interventions that could advance these skills. There were four main interventions introduced: 1) revised consultation note templates, 2) a documentation “checklist” to standardize expectations for documentation, 3) a “decision tree” to guide what type of note should be sent following consultations, 4) a documentation “guide” providing tips and examples to improve writing skills and 5) a peer-feedback workshop, where clinicians exchanged consultation notes, provided 1:1 feedback and shared main learning outcomes in a group discussion. During Phase 3, pharmacists re-answered the same survey questions 10 months later. This allowed for a direct comparison of documentation practices and skills before and after the interventions. Effectiveness: After the interventions, pharmacists reduced the time to complete their notes by nearly 14 min (from 48 to 34 minutes). In addition, the Clinic has since changed their approach to documentation by starting consultation notes with the clinical assessment and recommendation, followed by subjective and objective information, as opposed to the traditional SOAP format that the previous template followed. The revised note structure resulted in an increased uptake of template use from 37% to 100%. Furthermore, prior to the interventions and workshop, the majority of pharmacists ranked writing consultation notes as the most burdensome aspect of their daily workflow. Afterwards, the level of burden in writing consultation notes reduced significantly. Based on the results of the surveys as well as feedback acquired during this process, the traditional format of the Clinic’s consultation note template was permanently changed, to allow for the most important element, the recommendations, to be documented first. These findings can be used to inform how students are taught documentation and improve the quality of documentation by pharmacists in team-based or primary care settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".