MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088406840 · doi:10.1108/ijhcqa-03-2013-0029

Technology and medication errors: impact in nursing homes

2014· article· en· W2088406840 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chantal Baril, Viviane Gascon, Liette St-Pierre, Denis Lagacé

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNursingNursing homesMedicineMEDLINEMedical emergencyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to study a medication distribution technology's (MDT) impact on medication errors reported in public nursing homes in Québec Province. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The work was carried out in six nursing homes (800 patients). Medication error data were collected from nursing staff through a voluntary reporting process before and after MDT was implemented. The errors were analysed using: totals errors; medication error type; severity and patient consequences. A statistical analysis verified whether there was a significant difference between the variables before and after introducing MDT. FINDINGS: The results show that the MDT detected medication errors. The authors' analysis also indicates that errors are detected more rapidly resulting in less severe consequences for patients. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: MDT is a step towards safer and more efficient medication processes. Our findings should convince healthcare administrators to implement technology such as electronic prescriber or bar code medication administration systems to improve medication processes and to provide better healthcare to patients. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Few studies have been carried out in long-term healthcare facilities such as nursing homes. The authors' study extends what is known about MDT's impact on medication errors in nursing homes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.492 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Health Care Quality AssuranceSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207