Evaluating the clarity, applicability, and evaluability of an ASHP standard for international pharmaceutical practice in a Quebec healthcare institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary objective was to assess the clarity, applicability, and evaluability of the criteria included in the ASHP accreditation standard for international hospital and health-system pharmacy services. The secondary objective was to determine the proportion of the ASHP criteria that could be matched with those of Accreditation Canada's medication management standards. METHODS: For this cross-sectional descriptive study, a panel of 5 experts was recruited. Each panelist was invited, by electronic means, to consult the ASHP standard and rate its criteria in terms of clarity, applicability, and evaluability. After a 21-day consultation period, a summary grid was produced for a meeting, during which individual results were presented and, after discussion and by consensus, a rating for each criterion was determined. RESULTS: Regarding the primary objective, the panel of experts considered the criteria of the ASHP standard to be clear (98.8%, 82/83), applicable to pharmaceutical practice in Quebec healthcare institutions (96.4%, 80/83), and evaluable (95.2%, 79/83). Regarding the secondary objective, almost one-third (28.9%, 24/83) of the criteria within the ASHP standard could be matched completely to criteria within the Accreditation Canada medication management standards; a smaller proportion (26.5%, 22/83) could be partially matched to the Canadian standards, and the remainder (44.6%, 37/83) could not be matched. CONCLUSION: This descriptive, cross-sectional study showed that the ASHP criteria for international facilities are clear, applicable to hospital pharmacy practice in Quebec, and can be evaluated. However, only a limited proportion of the ASHP criteria could be matched with the Accreditation Canada medication management standards. The applicability to a larger cross section of hospital sites in Quebec or Canada (general hospitals as well as pediatric and specialty hospitals) could also be undertaken.
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 | 0.061 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".