An assessment of drug administration compliance in a university hospital centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Ensuring the safety of the medication process is a major world health concern. Within this framework, a field study of compliance at various stages of the medication process in health care units was conducted. The objective of our study was to compare compliance at the moment of drug administration at the patient's bedside before and after implementing certain measures (self-study activities for the nursing staff, publication of the findings of the preliminary study and identification of priorities for action, among others). METHODS: This is an observational study aimed at comparing compliance at various stages of the medication process in terms of dose verification, preparation and administration, on ward, before and after the implementation of corrective measures. Compliance was evaluated using an observational checklist that included 36 criteria. The evaluation was conducted on inpatients in nine health care units and the Emergency Care Unit of a university hospital centre. Compliance rates were calculated for each evaluated criterion separately and by category. The degree of significance and corresponding changes between 2007 and 2008 were also measured. RESULTS: The compliance rate for all the applicable criteria used on the checklist showed a significant increase from 16% in 2007 to 28% in 2008. A significant increase was also observed in the compliance rates for drug verification (91% vs. 76%) and drug preparation on wards (50% vs. 23%), particularly with regard to entering drug names and a second identifier on the label. CONCLUSIONS: Compliance rates at various separately evaluated stages in 2008 were relatively satisfactory. There is, however, room for improvement in total compliance. The introduction of simple tools and adapted communication strategies led to a sizeable improvement in the medication process at our facility.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".