MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966199193 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v62i6.847

Development of a Simplified Protocol for Administration of 20% Magnesium Sulphate for Prophylaxis and Treatment of Eclampsia

2009· article· en· W1966199193 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lynne Palmer, Brandi Newby

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsSurrey Memorial Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEclampsiaMagnesiumMedicinePharmacyProtocol (science)AnesthesiaPregnancyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Magnesium sulphate is a high-risk medication that is used extensively for prophylaxis and treatment of eclampsia. To accommodate recommendations related to fluid restrictions and patient safety, a protocol was developed for the administration of 20% magnesium sulphate.Objectives: To determine whether administration of 20% magnesium sulphate increased the risk of phlebitis relative to 2% to 8% magnesium sulphate solutions, to determine if the institution’s protocol for administration of 20% magnesium sulphate reduced errors during administration, and to identify strategies to further reduce potential errors.Methods: A retrospective chart audit was undertaken for patients who had received magnesium sulphate for prophylaxis of eclampsia from December 2004 to December 2007. A failure mode and effect analysis was used to identify additional safety strategies.Results: A total of 47 patients received magnesium sulphate according to the old administration protocol (2% to 8% solution) and 29 according to the new protocol (20% solution). No evidence of phlebitis was documented for any of these 76 patients. A few errors occurred with changes in rates or concentrations and because of failure to reset the pump after the loading dose, but there was no documented harm to any of the patients. Strategies to further reduce errors in the administration of magnesium sulphate included development of preprinted orders, use of 20% magnesium sulphate for all infusion rates, changes to pump settings to enable use of fractional infusion rates, preparation of magnesium sulphate in mini-bags in the pharmacy, double-check of pump settings by nurses, anesthesiology consult, and distribution of protocols to all areas in the hospital (to limit errors associated with patient transfers).Conclusions: There was no documented phlebitis, and fewer errors occurred when 20% magnesium sulphate was used. Several additional strategies were identified to reduce errors in the administration of this high-risk medication.RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Le sulfate de magnésium est un médicament à haut risque qui est utilisé à grande échelle dans le traitement prophylactique et curatif de l’éclampsie. Pour incorporer des recommandations ayant trait aux restrictions liquidiennes et à la sécurité des patientes, un protocole a été élaboré pour l’administration du sulfate de magnésium à 20%.Objectifs : Déterminer si l’administration d’une solution de sulfate de magnésium à 20% augmentait le risque de phlébite par rapport à des solutions de sulfate de magnésium entre 2% et 8% et si le protocole d’administration de sulfate de magnésium à 20% de l’établissement réduisait les erreurs d’administration, et définir des stratégies visant à réduire davantage les erreurs potentielles.Méthodes : Une analyse rétrospective des dossiers médicaux des patientes qui avaient reçu du sulfate de magnésium comme traitement prophylactique de l’éclampsie entre décembre 2004 et décembre 2007 a été réalisée. Une analyse des modes de défaillance et de leurs effets a servi à déterminer des stratégies de sécurité supplémentaires.Résultats : Un total de 47 patientes ont reçu du sulfate de magnésium selon l’ancien protocole d’administration (solution de 2% à 8%) et 29 conformément au nouveau protocole (solution à 20%). Aucun cas de phlébite n’a été documenté chez aucune des 76 patientes. Quelques erreurs sont survenues lors de modifications de débit ou de concentrations ou étaient attribuables à la non-réinitialisation de la pompe après l’administration de la dose de charge, mais les patientes n’ont subi aucun tort. Les stratégies visant à réduire davantage les erreurs d’administration du sulfate de magnésium incluaient le développement d’ordonnances préimprimées, l’utilisation de sulfate de magnésium à 20% pour tous les débits de perfusion, la modification des réglages de la pompe pour permettre l’utilisation des débits de perfusion fractionnaires, la préparation de minisacs de sulfate de magnésium en pharmacie, la vérification en double du réglage de la pompe par le personnel infirmier, la consultation d’un anesthésiologiste et la distribution de protocoles à tous les secteurs de l’hôpital (pour limiter les erreurs associées au transfert des patientes).Conclusions : Aucun cas de phlébite n’a été documenté et moins d’erreurs sont survenues avec le sulfate de magnésium à 20%. Plusieurs autres stratégies ont été définies pour réduire les erreurs d’administration de ce médicament à haut risque.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.071
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.133
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0710.133
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207