Survey of administration of medicines to pupils in primary schools within the London area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the policy, administration, and supervision of medicine administration in primary schools within the Greater London area (GLA). DESIGN: A prospective survey using postal questionnaires sent to 172 randomly selected primary schools within the GLA. PARTICIPANTS: Head teachers of primary schools. RESULTS: Some 65% of head teachers replied. Less than 50% of responding head teachers had actually read the national guidelines Supporting Pupils with Medical Needs and only 30% of respondents were aware of other members of staff who had read the document. A total of 95% of respondents followed a policy/procedure in caring for the medical needs of pupils. Over 80% of respondents had staff handling the pupils' medical needs, staff handling access to stored medicines, and prior arrangements for staff training. However, it is worrying that a quarter of the schools did not keep a written record of medicines given to children in schools. The majority of staff with responsibility for medicine administration in schools are support staff. The most encouraging findings were that for the majority of schools with children using the EpiPen and rectal diazepam, there were trained staff to administer these medicines. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of schools had a policy in place to deal with medicine administration, although further work should be conducted to analyse the content of such policies. It is very important that training is directed at staff responsible for medicine administration and not just at teachers. Most schools were willing to administer rectal diazepam and EpiPen treatment in an emergency.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".