SATISFACTION WITH CLINICAL PHARMACY SERVICES PROVIDED TO SPECIAL CARE HOMES IN SASKATCHEWAN
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residents in long-term care facilities use a high number of medications and are at greater risk for adverse drug events compared to elderly persons not living in a long-term care facility. Pharmacists as part of a multidisciplinary team can help optimize drug therapy and prevent adverse drug events. The Saskatchewan College of Pharmacists (SCP) has developed Standards of Practice for pharmacists providing pharmacy services to all residents of long-term care facilities. The purpose of this study \nwas to compare the current provision of, and expectation for clinical pharmacy services provided to special care homes in Saskatchewan. This study also compared different service expectations between those who receive pharmacy services (Directors of Care) and those who provide pharmacy services (pharmacists) to possibly identify a barrier to providing clinical services to special care homes. Other perceived barriers for pharmacists providing clinical services to special care homes were also documented. \nThe study was a cross-sectional design using a questionnaire. Questions were based on SCP's Standards of Practice for Pharmacists Providing Services to Long-Term Care Residents. A sample of 149 Directors of Care from 152 special care homes in Saskatchewan and 125 pharmacists were surveyed. SPSS 11.0 for Windows was used to perform the analysis. \nThis study identified significant quality of service gaps for all clinical services studied. The service gaps were more negative for care homes without a designated "in- house" pharmacist compared to care homes with a pharmacist. Director of Care actual expectations for pharmacy services were higher than pharmacists perceived them to be, indicating a potential barrier. The most frequently reported barrier to providing clinical pharmacy services by pharmacists was time with 94.9% indicating "sometimes" or \n"always" a barrier. \nThe Standards of Practice are the expected level of pharmacy care for residents living in long-term care facilities. The data suggest there was a quality of service gap between the expected level of care and the level of care provided. Pharmacists, their professional associations, the College of Pharmacy and Nutrition, Directors of Care and the Regional Health Authorities will need to work together to eliminate the barriers for pharmacists providing clinical services to long-term care facilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".