Staff nurses’ sites of choice for administering intramuscular injections to adult patients in the acute care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this descriptive, correlational study was to determine intramuscular injection sites presently being used by acute care nurses in one Canadian province and factors that contribute to site selection. BACKGROUND: Intramuscular injections are routinely administered by nurses in acute care settings. Recent nursing literature recommends that the ventrogluteal site, rather than the dorsogluteal site, should be used for these injections, although evidence in the literature to support this claim is lacking. METHOD: A convenience sample of nurses employed in acute care settings was accessed through a database at the professional association. Six hundred and fifty-two nurses were sent a questionnaire. Two hundred and sixty-four questionnaires were returned giving a response rate of 42·2%. Data were collected during 2007. FINDINGS: Nurses are preferentially using the dorsogluteal site over the ventrogluteal site, and site selection varied significantly with age, level of preparation, years in nursing and knowledge of nerve injury as a complication with the selected site. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses are not preferentially using the ventrogluteal site for intramuscular injections to adults as recommended in recent nursing literature. Additional research on the safety of a properly mapped dorsogluteal site is needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".