Pub Date : 2022-04-19DOI: 10.1177/17151635221098004
{"title":"Corrigendum to Extended antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events: A tool for pharmacists","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/17151635221098004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17151635221098004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46612,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Pharmacists Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46374414","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-15DOI: 10.1177/17151635221091191
Stephanie Gysel, Kaitlyn E. Watson, R. Tsuyuki
{"title":"Appropriate staffing for pharmacists’ full scope of practice","authors":"Stephanie Gysel, Kaitlyn E. Watson, R. Tsuyuki","doi":"10.1177/17151635221091191","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17151635221091191","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46612,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Pharmacists Journal","volume":"155 1","pages":"136 - 138"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49392819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1177/17151635221089293
Briana Schmeltzer, Zack Dumont, Nkem Iroh
{"title":"Addressing the pharmacy leadership crisis in Canada: A call to action for a unified approach","authors":"Briana Schmeltzer, Zack Dumont, Nkem Iroh","doi":"10.1177/17151635221089293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17151635221089293","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46612,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Pharmacists Journal","volume":"155 1","pages":"140 - 142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44062740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-09DOI: 10.1177/17151635221080457
Qihang Gan, Avery S. Loi, Maha Chaudhry, N. He, A. Shakeri, L. Dolovich, S. Cadarette
Introduction Medication-related problems are a significant contributor to morbidity, mortality and health care resource utilization in Canada and globally. Medication reviews are 1 proposed strategy to help reduce preventable adverse drug events and hospital admissions. A medication review consists of a structured, critical examination of a patient’s medications and aims to provide education, improve medication adherence, resolve drug therapy problems and optimize medication management. The ultimate goal is to yield better health outcomes for the patient. While informal medication review is encompassed in the scope of practice for all pharmacists across Canada, government reimbursement for these services is not universal. Ontario was the first province to compensate community pharmacies for medication reviews, introducing the MedsCheck program in 2007 and expanding to include patients with diabetes, home-bound patients and residents of long-term care homes in 2010. Although the terminology and eligibility of programs vary, 8 provinces reimburse pharmacies for providing medication review services. Please refer to Table 1 in brief and Appendix 1 (available in the online version of the article) for a detailed summary of publicly funded fee-for-service medication review services across Canadian provinces and territories. The purpose of this research brief is to introduce the Ontario Pharmacy Evidence Network (OPEN) Atlas of MedsCheck services and describe changes in the delivery of publicly funded medication review (MedsCheck) services over time in Ontario. Broader considerations across Canada for medication review services are included in the Discussion section.
{"title":"The Ontario Pharmacy Evidence Network Atlas of MedsCheck services","authors":"Qihang Gan, Avery S. Loi, Maha Chaudhry, N. He, A. Shakeri, L. Dolovich, S. Cadarette","doi":"10.1177/17151635221080457","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17151635221080457","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Medication-related problems are a significant contributor to morbidity, mortality and health care resource utilization in Canada and globally. Medication reviews are 1 proposed strategy to help reduce preventable adverse drug events and hospital admissions. A medication review consists of a structured, critical examination of a patient’s medications and aims to provide education, improve medication adherence, resolve drug therapy problems and optimize medication management. The ultimate goal is to yield better health outcomes for the patient. While informal medication review is encompassed in the scope of practice for all pharmacists across Canada, government reimbursement for these services is not universal. Ontario was the first province to compensate community pharmacies for medication reviews, introducing the MedsCheck program in 2007 and expanding to include patients with diabetes, home-bound patients and residents of long-term care homes in 2010. Although the terminology and eligibility of programs vary, 8 provinces reimburse pharmacies for providing medication review services. Please refer to Table 1 in brief and Appendix 1 (available in the online version of the article) for a detailed summary of publicly funded fee-for-service medication review services across Canadian provinces and territories. The purpose of this research brief is to introduce the Ontario Pharmacy Evidence Network (OPEN) Atlas of MedsCheck services and describe changes in the delivery of publicly funded medication review (MedsCheck) services over time in Ontario. Broader considerations across Canada for medication review services are included in the Discussion section.","PeriodicalId":46612,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Pharmacists Journal","volume":"155 1","pages":"151 - 156"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44896581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-14DOI: 10.1177/17151635221075991
L. D. Jackson
Professional identity formation is an important topic in the higher education and pharmacy literature and a key outcome of the PharmD program. Recently, Neubert et al. explored the impact of the pharmacy curriculum on professional identity formation in a cohort of students by evaluating their responses to a survey administered at 3 time points over a 2-year period (beginning of first, second and third years). Students were asked to describe what they would say to the physician when intervening on behalf of the patient to change a medication because of an allergy. Responses were analysed for the presence of indicators of patient centredness (e.g., demonstrating concern for impact on the patient) and physician collaboration (e.g., having a sense of shared care for a patient) and absence of indicators of physician deference (e.g., demonstrated by the ability to make a clear recommendation)—key aspects of relational professional identity for the pharmacist. Overall, students’ responses failed to meet expectations, often lacking a strong recommendation to the physician to prescribe an alternate drug. Study results suggest that the relational professional identity of students at 3 time points in the PharmD program was poorly developed regarding both patients and physicians. The reasons why students failed to demonstrate a skill they have been taught is open to speculation. I offer 3 perspectives that may inform curriculum delivery and hopefully enhance professional identity formation—issues related to mental models, collaboration and influencing others, and critical thinking and communication skills. The first perspective derives from the field of implementation science, which is concerned with the implementation of evidence-based interventions. The concept of mental models has been proposed as one way to view implementation challenges and guide the selection of strategies to deliver evidencebased interventions. The failure of students to deliver the anticipated intervention in such a real-world challenge could be considered a failure of implementation, possibly due to an existing mental model that fosters a perception of lower status relative to physicians. Such a perception could sabotage the training received related to patient advocacy and in interprofessional collaboration. The second perspective pertains to the concepts of collaboration and influencing others. Status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness (SCARF) have been described as 5 key areas that influence human behaviour. The SCARF model is based on the premise that the brain seeks to minimize threats and maximize rewards. Accordingly, maximizing rewards should help a person perform better, whereas being in the state of minimizing danger could lead to disengagement. The perception of threats in any of the 5 domains could sabotage the curriculum, while the perception of rewards could strengthen curricular messages and increase students’ confidence. The third perspective pertains to
{"title":"Three perspectives on relational professional identity formation","authors":"L. D. Jackson","doi":"10.1177/17151635221075991","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17151635221075991","url":null,"abstract":"Professional identity formation is an important topic in the higher education and pharmacy literature and a key outcome of the PharmD program. Recently, Neubert et al. explored the impact of the pharmacy curriculum on professional identity formation in a cohort of students by evaluating their responses to a survey administered at 3 time points over a 2-year period (beginning of first, second and third years). Students were asked to describe what they would say to the physician when intervening on behalf of the patient to change a medication because of an allergy. Responses were analysed for the presence of indicators of patient centredness (e.g., demonstrating concern for impact on the patient) and physician collaboration (e.g., having a sense of shared care for a patient) and absence of indicators of physician deference (e.g., demonstrated by the ability to make a clear recommendation)—key aspects of relational professional identity for the pharmacist. Overall, students’ responses failed to meet expectations, often lacking a strong recommendation to the physician to prescribe an alternate drug. Study results suggest that the relational professional identity of students at 3 time points in the PharmD program was poorly developed regarding both patients and physicians. The reasons why students failed to demonstrate a skill they have been taught is open to speculation. I offer 3 perspectives that may inform curriculum delivery and hopefully enhance professional identity formation—issues related to mental models, collaboration and influencing others, and critical thinking and communication skills. The first perspective derives from the field of implementation science, which is concerned with the implementation of evidence-based interventions. The concept of mental models has been proposed as one way to view implementation challenges and guide the selection of strategies to deliver evidencebased interventions. The failure of students to deliver the anticipated intervention in such a real-world challenge could be considered a failure of implementation, possibly due to an existing mental model that fosters a perception of lower status relative to physicians. Such a perception could sabotage the training received related to patient advocacy and in interprofessional collaboration. The second perspective pertains to the concepts of collaboration and influencing others. Status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness (SCARF) have been described as 5 key areas that influence human behaviour. The SCARF model is based on the premise that the brain seeks to minimize threats and maximize rewards. Accordingly, maximizing rewards should help a person perform better, whereas being in the state of minimizing danger could lead to disengagement. The perception of threats in any of the 5 domains could sabotage the curriculum, while the perception of rewards could strengthen curricular messages and increase students’ confidence. The third perspective pertains to ","PeriodicalId":46612,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Pharmacists Journal","volume":"155 1","pages":"76 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48218398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
S. Abidi, J. Abma, Michelle Abraczinskas, Lisa Abuogi, Francesco Acciai, E. Adam, Margo E. Killham Adam, Zachary Adams, Sally Adams, William Adelman, O. Adetokunboh, N. Adler, Molly Adrian, Jon Agley, C. Baugh, Christine Agnew-Brune, W. Agras, E. Agudile, Aimalohi Ahonkai, Elsie Akwara, T. Alaqzam, Rachel Alinsky, Julia L. Allan, Chenoa Allen, David Allen, Carlos A. Almenara, Joanne D. Altman, K. Alvarez, Carmen Alvarez, Daniele Evelin Alves, Ilana Ambrogi, N. Ameenuddin, K. Amico, Sajeda Amin, S. Ammerman, Allan Andersen, Martin Anderson, Emily Ellen Anderson, S. Anderson, T. Andrasfay, Judy A. Andrews, J. Andrzejewski, Rachel A. Annunziato, Arash Anoshiravani, James Christopher Anthony, Joana Araújo, Steven R. Aragon, G. Arbanas, M. Arcinas, A. Thomas, T. Barnett, N. Barnett, L. Barnett, J. Barrington-Trimis, L. Barrios, Rachel Barry, Erin Barthel, R. Bartlett, Francisco I. Bastos, S. Basu, D. Batisky, P. Batterham, K. Bauer, L. Beach, E. Beatriz, J. Becasen, K. Beck, Inga Becker-Hebly, Kathleen R Beckm
Seeking andmaintaining high editorial standards of scientific manuscripts is an important responsibility. This task can be accomplished only with the advice and input from a large number of colleagues who are invited to review submitted papers. Their critical comments and helpful suggestions have played amajor role inmakingVadose Zone Journal a success. Members of the VZJ Editorial Board want to express their appreciation to the following individuals who helped review manuscripts in 2019. We extend our apologies and thanks to any reviewer whose name may have been inadvertently omitted from this list.
寻求和保持科学稿件的高编辑标准是一项重要的责任。这项任务只有在大量被邀请审查提交的论文的同事的建议和投入下才能完成。他们的批评意见和有益的建议对vadose Zone Journal的成功发挥了重要作用。《VZJ》编委会成员向以下在2019年帮助审稿的人员表示感谢。我们向任何可能在无意中被遗漏的审稿人表示歉意和感谢。
{"title":"Thanks to our 2019 reviewers","authors":"S. Abidi, J. Abma, Michelle Abraczinskas, Lisa Abuogi, Francesco Acciai, E. Adam, Margo E. Killham Adam, Zachary Adams, Sally Adams, William Adelman, O. Adetokunboh, N. Adler, Molly Adrian, Jon Agley, C. Baugh, Christine Agnew-Brune, W. Agras, E. Agudile, Aimalohi Ahonkai, Elsie Akwara, T. Alaqzam, Rachel Alinsky, Julia L. Allan, Chenoa Allen, David Allen, Carlos A. Almenara, Joanne D. Altman, K. Alvarez, Carmen Alvarez, Daniele Evelin Alves, Ilana Ambrogi, N. Ameenuddin, K. Amico, Sajeda Amin, S. Ammerman, Allan Andersen, Martin Anderson, Emily Ellen Anderson, S. Anderson, T. Andrasfay, Judy A. Andrews, J. Andrzejewski, Rachel A. Annunziato, Arash Anoshiravani, James Christopher Anthony, Joana Araújo, Steven R. Aragon, G. Arbanas, M. Arcinas, A. Thomas, T. Barnett, N. Barnett, L. Barnett, J. Barrington-Trimis, L. Barrios, Rachel Barry, Erin Barthel, R. Bartlett, Francisco I. Bastos, S. Basu, D. Batisky, P. Batterham, K. Bauer, L. Beach, E. Beatriz, J. Becasen, K. Beck, Inga Becker-Hebly, Kathleen R Beckm","doi":"10.1002/vzj2.20046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/vzj2.20046","url":null,"abstract":"Seeking andmaintaining high editorial standards of scientific manuscripts is an important responsibility. This task can be accomplished only with the advice and input from a large number of colleagues who are invited to review submitted papers. Their critical comments and helpful suggestions have played amajor role inmakingVadose Zone Journal a success. Members of the VZJ Editorial Board want to express their appreciation to the following individuals who helped review manuscripts in 2019. We extend our apologies and thanks to any reviewer whose name may have been inadvertently omitted from this list.","PeriodicalId":46612,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Pharmacists Journal","volume":"153 1","pages":"9 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/vzj2.20046","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44404229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：