Medication safety and the administration of intravenous vincristine: International survey of oncology pharmacists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The risk of medication errors with vincristine administration is well documented. Our objective was to ascertain how vincristine is administered worldwide and determine what strategies for preventing the accidental intrathecal administration of vincristine are in place. METHODS: A survey, comprising 28 questions, was distributed to 363 International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners members from 42 countries via email. Questions were asked on methods of vincristine administration, intrathecal drug administration and strategies used to prevent medication errors. A reminder was sent and the survey was available on the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners website. Only one survey per institution was requested. RESULTS: In all, 62 responses from 15 countries were received, with the majority from Australia. Vincristine was dispensed in mini-bags in 77.4% of centres, though some also used syringes. Syringes were used in 31.1% of centres, with half these doses prepared undiluted. Administration took 5 to 15 minutes in most centres (78.8%). The most common reasons for still using syringes were perceived risk of extravasation and faster infusion time. Despite numerous vincristine administrations, extravasation was very rare. Other recommended strategies for error prevention were in use in the majority of centres. CONCLUSION: Comparisons with three previous surveys are difficult as the majority of respondents in those studies were from the USA. A number of areas appear to have improved, particularly the preparation of vincristine in mini-bags, but they are far from perfect. Deaths continue to occur following accidental intrathecal administration of vincristine. International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioner members are urged to lead the way in incorporating strategies for prevention into institutions worldwide.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".