Réflexions sur la délégation de la vérification contenant-contenu dans un centre hospitalier universitaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Introduction : Dresser un portrait de la delegation de la verification contenant-contenu au Centre universitaire de sante McGill et proposer des avenues pour augmenter son implantation en tenant compte des nouvelles recommandations du groupe de travail sur la delegation de la verification contenant-contenu de l’Association des pharmaciens des etablissements de sante du Quebec. Description de la problematique : La delegation de la verification contenant-contenu est implantee de facon inegale dans les differents sites. Dans un contexte de penurie, et dans l’optique d’une eventuelle fusion des differents sites, il est souhaitable d’augmenter et d’harmoniser l’implantation de la delegation de la verification contenant-contenu. Resolution de la problematique : Des rencontres avec les personnes-ressources de chaque site ont eu lieu afin d’evaluer la possibilite d’augmenter et d’harmoniser la delegation de la verification contenant-contenu. Les points discutes concernaient la description des tâches actuellement deleguees et a deleguer a court et a moyen terme, les reflexions concernant les limites actuelles et futures pouvant retarder l’implantation de ces nouvelles tâches, les couts et le gain de temps du pharmacien. L’equipe a reflechi a la certification, a la resistance au changement et aux technologies. Conclusion : L’evolution de la pratique hospitaliere nous force a adopter des solutions pour rendre l’organisation du circuit du medicament plus efficace. Pour y parvenir, nous devons nous assurer d’obtenir la collaboration de toute l’equipe, de mettre a profit les competences de tous et de profiter pleinement des technologies d’automatisation disponibles. Ces avenues s’averent essentielles pour maintenir et developper la qualite des soins cliniques et du systeme de distribution des medicaments. Abstract Introduction: To describe a program for the delegation of container/label content verification at the McGill University Health Centre. To propose different ways to extend the program’s implementation while considering the new recommendations made by the working group of the Association des pharmaciens des etablissements de sante du Quebec on the delegation of container/label content verification. Description of the problem: The delegation of container/label content verification was implemented unevenly on the different sites. Despite a shortage of human resources and considering an eventual fusion of the different hospital sites, it is desirable to extend and standardize the implementation of the delegation of container/label content verification. Problem resolution: Key players from every site were consulted in order to evaluate the possibility of extending and standardizing the delegation of container/label content verification. Topics discussed included the description of tasks currently delegated and those to be delegated on a short-term and medium-term basis, thoughts regarding current and future limitations that could delay implementation of new tasks, and costs and time gained by pharmacists. The team considered certification, resistance to change and to technology. Conclusion: The evolving nature of hospital pharmacy has led us to adopt methods to improve the efficiency of the medication circuit. To achieve this, the entire team must collaborate in order to benefit from the competencies of each and to profit fully from available automated technology. This is essential for maintaining and developing the quality of clinical care and of the drug distribution system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".