Development, implementation, and evaluation of an advanced primary care pharmacist pilot training program as a strategy to enhance team-based primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's 50,000+ pharmacists play a crucial role in the comprehensive delivery of primary care. Recognizing this, a program in alignment with the Team Primary Care national initiative was developed to enhance their skills and knowledge in collaborative care, aiming to cultivate advanced primary care pharmacist leaders. The curriculum development involved aligning activities with pharmacist roles and competencies, emphasizing interprofessional teamwork. A mixed-methods evaluation revealed positive outcomes: 14/15 pharmacists completed the program, reporting improved readiness for team-based care. All non-pharmacist team members expressed a desire for continued pharmacist collaboration. Overall, satisfaction was high among participants and team members, indicating success in training. The program's comprehensive approach, covering primary care landscape, clinical skills, teaching, change management, and advocacy, empowered pharmacists to integrate team-based care and contribute to positive change in primary care settings. Training more pharmacists with this program is one of the many strategies to further establish and optimize team-based primary care.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".