Automated Compounding of Parenteral Nutrition for Pediatric Patients: Characterization of Workload and Costs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Parenteral nutrition (PN) compounding in large hospital centers is now largely automated using volumetric pump systems. No study has examined the pharmacy workload and costs associated with this process. This study was designed to characterize these elements at our center and to identify areas for potential improvement. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all PN orders compounded from May 19, 2007, to June 25, 2010. Patients were divided into groups according to the ward where PN was initiated. RESULTS: The age and weight of patients at initiation of PN were similar throughout the study, except in neonatology, where initiation now occurs earlier in life (age 1.3 ± 2.7 days in 2010 vs. 3.4 ± 9.4 in 2007; p=0.003). An average of 894 orders per month were compounded. A total of 59% of orders were for neonatal patients. The average cost of source solutions per PN order increased from Can$23.27 in 2007 to Can$37.78 in 2010. Partially used source solutions discarded at the end of the day represented between 7.7% and 9.2% of total source solution cost. Amino acids in 3-L bags were responsible for the largest waste, with Can$953 to Can$1048 wasted monthly. CONCLUSIONS: PN compounding at our center represents an important workload and increasing costs. A reduction in source solution waste, for example, by reducing the use of large source solution containers, would be beneficial.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".