Discrepancies between ordered and delivered concentrations of opiate infusions in critical care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to test the assumption that the measured concentrations of medication infusions are within pharmaceutical standards (+/-10% of intended concentrations) and whether, at the time the infusion was mixed, the professional background of persons preparing the infusion or the unit for which the infusion was prepared were related to the observed variation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This prospective, observational study was conducted in the neonatal and pediatric intensive care units of a university-affiliated tertiary pediatric center. Morphine infusions prepared for clinical use were randomly sampled over a 7-month period. Those with no error between labeled and ordered concentration were further analyzed. High-performance liquid chromatography was used to determine the concentration of morphine infusions. The primary outcome was a difference of >10% between ordered and measured concentrations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The measured concentration of 65% of the 232 infusions was >10% different from the ordered concentration (95% confidence interval, 58-71%). The concentrations of 6% of infusions represented two-fold errors (95% confidence interval, 3-9%). The difference was normally distributed around zero, suggesting a cumulative effect of random errors, rather than a systematic bias. The time that the infusion was prepared, the professional background of the persons preparing the infusion, and the unit for which the infusion was mixed were not significant predictors of discrepancy (p =.74, analysis of variance). CONCLUSIONS: The concentration of two thirds of infusions prepared for clinical use was outside accepted industry standards. These findings are likely to be broadly representative of intravenous drug administration in hospitalized children and pediatric pharmacokinetic studies. Further study of the causes and clinical impact is required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".