Des audits en guise de soutien à la préparation d’une visite d’Agrément Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Introduction : La preparation a la visite d’agrement necessite un investissement important en ressources humaines et en coordination compte tenu de l’etendue de la pratique pharmaceutique et du circuit du medicament dans un etablissement de sante. L’objectif de cet article consiste a decrire une demarche pratique d’audits en guise de soutien a la preparation d’une visite d’Agrement Canada. Problematique : Pour satisfaire aux exigences de la norme sur la gestion des medicaments, dont les pratiques organisationnelles requises applicables au circuit du medicament, le pharmacien doit realiser un minimum de neuf audits. Toutefois, il parait souhaitable de realiser egalement des audits portant sur d’autres criteres importants de la norme afin d’avoir un point de depart permettant non seulement le reperage des ecarts mais l’evaluation des effets des mesures correctices proposees. Resolution de la problematique : Vingt-sept de ces audits ont ete realises en mars 2011 et ont necessite au total environ 80 heures d’observation, d’analyse et de redaction de la part de deux residents en pharmacie, d’un assistant technique en pharmacie et de 10 cadres-conseils infirmiers. Pour chaque audit, nous avons utilise le gabarit de la methode scientifique, soit objectif et description de l’audit, methode, resultats, discussion, limites. Dans plusieurs cas, on note des ecarts par rapport aux criteres formules. Un rapport d’audit a ete redige puis a circule aupres des membres du departement de pharmacie et du comite de pharmacie-soins infirmiers. Conclusion : Il existe peu de donnees portant sur la realisation d’audits en guise de soutien a la preparation d’une visite d’agrement. Les resultats de ces audits seront utilises afin d’etablir un plan d’intervention avant la visite d’agrement. Abstract Introduction: Preparation for an accreditation visit requires considerable coordination and investment in human resources given how widespread pharmacy practice and the medication use and medication management process are. The purpose of this article is to describe a procedure for practical audits in preparation for an Accreditation Canada visit. Problem: To comply with drug management standards, that is, the required organizational practices applicable to the medication use and medication management process, the pharmacist must perform a minimum of nine audits. However, it is recommended to also perform audits dealing with other major criteria of the standard, so as to establish a point of departure that enables both the determination of deviations and the evaluation of the effects of proposed corrective measures. Resolution: Twenty-seven of such audits were performed in March and required a grand total of 80 hours of observation, analysis and writing by the two pharmacy residents, the assistant pharmacy technician, and 10 nursing administrators. For each audit, we followed the scientific method, namely, objective description of the audit and its method, results, discussion, limits. In several cases, we noted deviations in relation to our criteria. An audit report was prepared and distributed to members of the pharmacy department and to the nursing-pharmacy committee. Conclusion: There is little data available on performing audits in preparation for an accreditation visit. Results of these audits will be used to establish an action plan before the accreditation visit. Key words: Hospital pharmacy, accreditation, indicators, practice audits
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 | 0.017 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".