Evaluation of the quality and appropriateness of medical prescriptions in the hospital discharge report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this research has been to evaluate: (a) the frequency of the use of non-standard terms in medical prescriptions; (b) the proportion of “new drugs of irrelevant therapeutic value” or medication of low therapeutic utility (LTU); and (c) the use of Generic Pharmaceutical Specialties (GPS). Materials and methods: Descriptive transversal observational study with analytical components over the hospital discharge reports issued in a year. The main variables of the results were: a) the proportion of prescriptions with abbreviations, symbols or expressions of non-recommended doses in the discharge report, b) the frequency of prescriptions of pharmaceutical specialties without the relevant contribution (NRPS), c) the proportion of LTU medication in the hospital discharge reports, d) the frequency of GPS or, if they are not available, the Common International Denomination (CID) of the active ingredient in the discharge reports, and e) the mean cost per prescribed medication in the hospital discharge report. Results: A total of 854 discharge reports have been studied containing 4,055 medical prescriptions. A considerable number (38.8%) of the medical prescriptions in the discharge report have used abbreviations and non-recommended symbols for dose expression. The prescription of new drugs of irrelevant therapeutic value reached 2.8% while the prescription of pharmaceutical products of LTU was 2.1%. Only 13.8% of the prescriptions were carried out as an active ingredient. The mean cost per prescription was 17.3 euros (SD = 31.34). Conclusions: Appropriateness in the prescription of medication at hospital discharge is considered to be not satisfactory and our results are consistent with other previously published reports. However, there are frequent errors in the prescription of medication and given the demonstrated relationship between errors and possible adverse effects, it is necessary to introduce programs to raise awareness about the importance of the introduction of safe practices in the medical prescriptions of the hospital discharge report.
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".