A Medication Error Prevention Survey: five years of results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Alberta Cancer Board is composed of 19 cancer centers in Alberta, Canada. In 1996, the Alberta Cancer Board's Medication Error Prevention Committee developed a medication error prevention survey based on the medication error prevention policies. Since 1996, this survey has been sent annually to the pharmacy departments of the 19 cancer centers. Each year, the results are presented to the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee of the Alberta Cancer Board. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the paper was to present and analyze five years of medication error prevention survey results, thus summarizing adherence to the Alberta Cancer Board's medication error prevention policies. METHODS: Medication error prevention survey results from 2003 to 2007 were collected. For each of the five years, a medication error prevention survey was faxed to the pharmacy department at each of the 19 cancer centers of the Alberta Cancer Board. Results of the survey were tabulated by the pharmacist responsible for quality assurance. RESULTS: Analysis of the five years of medication error prevention survey results revealed that over 90% of the medication error prevention policies were followed within the 19 Alberta Cancer Board sites. Adherence to the policies was 490% in the tertiary sites and associate clinics. Adherence was also >90% in the community cancer centers. CONCLUSIONS: Results from the survey indicated that the medication error prevention policies are practiced within the Alberta Cancer Board. Potential areas of improvement have been identified and will be addressed by the Medication Error Prevention Team.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".