Affecting Change Through Continuing Education: Improving Vaccine Administration Technique
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How to Obtain Contact Hours by Reading This Issue Instructions: 2.3 contact hours will be awarded for this activity. A contact hour is 60 minutes of instruction. This is a Learner-paced Program. Vindico Medical Education does not require submission of the quiz answers. A contact hour certificate will be awarded 4–6 weeks following receipt of your completed Registration Form, including the Evaluation portion. To obtain contact hours: 1. Read the article, “Affecting Change Through Continuing Education: Improving Vaccine Administration Technique,” on pages 395–400, carefully noting the tables and other illustrative materials that are provided to enhance your knowledge and understanding of the content. 2. Read each question and record your answers. After completing all questions, compare your answers to those provided within this issue. 3. Type or print your full name and address and your Social Security number in the spaces provided on the Registration Form. Indicate the total time spent on the activity (reading article and completing quiz). Forms and quizzes cannot be processed if this section is incomplete. All participants are required by the accreditation agency to attest to the time spent completing the activity. 4. Forward the completed Registration Form with your check or money order for $20 made payable to JCEN-CNE . Payment must be in U.S. dollars drawn on a U.S. bank. This activity is valid from September 1, 2012, to August 31, 2014. Vindico Medical Education, LLC is accredited as a provider of continuing nursing education by the American Nurses Credentialing Center’s Commission on Accreditation. This activity is co-provided by Vindico Medical Education and T he J ournal of C ontinuing E ducation in N ursing . Objectives: After studying the article, “Affecting Change Through Continuing Education: Improving Vaccine Administration Technique,” in this issue, the participant will: 1. Describe an educational initiative that translated knowledge into clinical practice. 2. Identify current best practices in intramuscular vaccine administration technique. 3. Identify knowledge and beliefs around the need to aspirate prior to intramuscular vaccine administration. 4. Identify reasons why avoiding aspiration prior to intramuscular vaccination does not impact client safety. Author Disclosure Statement Ms. Allan is on the speakers’ bureau of the Immunization Education Initiative, which is supported by an unrestricted grant from Wyeth. Commercial Support Statement All author(s) and planners have agreed that this activity will be free of bias. There is no commercial company support for this activity. There is no noncommercial support for this activity. The practice of aspiration before administering intramuscular immunization has been identified as causing increased pain. The latest evidence shows that this is no longer best practice. Some nurses believe that aspiration is necessary for patient safety. An education session was provided to 150 participants, most of whom were community health nurses attending an immunization conference. Nurses were invited to complete a pre-education questionnaire on current knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs related to the administration of intramuscular immunizations as well as a posteducation questionnaire to identify changes in knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. On the pre-education questionnaire, 32.4% of respondents indicated that injecting slowly causes the most pain during intramuscular immunization. On the posteducation questionnaire, 94.2% indicated that injecting the vaccine slowly caused more pain than injecting the vaccine swiftly. After the education session, most of the participants showed an understanding of current best practice recommendations for aspiration during the administration of intramuscular immunizations.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it