MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005649835 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.v64i5.1073

A Standardized, Structured Approach to Identifying Drug-Related Problems in the Intensive Care Unit: FASTHUG-MAIDENS

2011· article· en· W2005649835 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Vincent H Mabasa, Douglas L Malyuk, Elisa-Marie Weatherby, Alice Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsPeace Arch HospitalRoyal Columbian HospitalAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntensive care unitUnit (ring theory)MedicineComputer scienceIntensive care medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pharmacy practice in the intensive care unit (ICU) is complex, because of the high acuity of patients’ conditions and the large number of medications prescribed. Therefore, many pharmacists, especially those not familiar with ICU care, may feel overwhelmed and apprehensive in this setting. There is currently no standardized, structured approach to help pharmacists provide pharmaceutical care in the ICU. For that reason, routine tasks such as identifying drug-related problems are much harder to perform, and drug therapy is not always optimized. In 2005, the FASTHUG mnemonic was proposed as a standardized approach to help ICU physicians ensure that all essential aspects of care for critically ill patients are met. Implementation of the FASTHUG approach in a surgical ICU was subsequently shown to decrease the rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Although the mnemonic has been generally well received, some clinicians have modified it to better augment their particular ICU practices. Notably, the FASTHUG mnemonic was not designed to identify drug-related problems commonly seen in the ICU. Therefore, we developed a modified mnemonic, FASTHUG-MAIDENS, as a standardized, structured approach to identifying drug-related problems in the ICU (Table 1).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations38
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207