MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016036954 · doi:10.1345/aph.140018

Drug Utilization Review in an Extended Care Facility

2006· article· en· W2016036954 on OpenAlexaff
Kati Letourneau

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePharmacyPharmacistPharmaceutical careUnit (ring theory)Scope (computer science)GeriatricsClinical pharmacyDrug Utilization ReviewPolypharmacyNursingMedical emergencyDrugIntensive care medicinePharmacologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinical pharmacy has expanded the scope of pharmaceutical services and one of the newer areas of involvement is the extended care facility. The author discusses the need, because of a limited budget, for better financial control of drug usage in Lions Gate Hospital's new 170 bed extended care unit. A need for pharmacy involvement in geriatrics because of the rising population of elderly people in extended care facilities and nursing homes and the complexities of using drugs in the elderly is discussed. The new extended care unit was provided with traditional pharmacy services and a pharmacist to participate in a patient review committee. This pharmacist monitored the patients' drug usage and made recommendations to the committee where applicable. The lowered costs of drug therapy in the extended care unit and the more efficacious use of certain medications are discussed in terms of pharmacy involvement. The author concludes that the pharmacist can make a significant contribution to the more economical use of drugs in extended care facilities and has a potential valuable role in improving patient care in this area.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.322
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207