Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to examine the adequacy of the 5 rights (5 R's) for nurses and for including patients in medication administration while considering patient safety. Patient safety related to medication adverse events will be discussed; the 5 R's will be examined and critiqued and the importance of patient-centered care and patient participation in care will be presented. A path forward is offered based on the expressive-collaborative model. Suggestions for introduction of the model are outlined, and implications for practice, research, and education are discussed. BACKGROUND: Nurses have been guided by the 5 R's of medication administration in both education and practice for many decades. Many have found the 5 R's to be lacking and proceeded to propose the addition of a variety of rights from right indication to the rights of nurses to have legible orders and timely access to information. Patients are no longer passive recipients of care and are choosing to play increasingly greater roles in the process of care. INNOVATION: In a collaborative patient-centered environment, an expressive-collaborative model of approaching systems of care is needed. In this model, individuals negotiate with one another to find out what people need to know and to strategize on the means to acquiring the necessary information. Providers are no longer expected to be all knowing. CONCLUSION: Medication administration is no longer simply the 5 R's. Medication administration is a process with many interconnected players including patients. We need to collaboratively restructure medication use in this era in which all involved in the process share the responsibility for a safe medication use system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.185 | 0.087 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".