Using a Preprinted Order Sheet to Reduce Prescription Errors in a Pediatric Emergency Department: A Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Medication errors are common among pediatric patients and in emergency departments (EDs). Such errors may lead to prolonged hospitalization, unnecessary diagnostic tests and treatments, and death. The objective of this study was to determine whether the use of a structured order sheet reduces the incidence of medication errors in a pediatric ED. METHODS: The study was a randomized, controlled study that was conducted in a tertiary care pediatric hospital. Eighteen days were randomized into 2 study groups: days during which the regular blank order sheets were used and days during which preprinted, formatted, order sheets were used. All patients' charts from these days were reviewed by 2 medical students, who extracted demographic, clinical, and therapeutic data into a database. Two pediatric emergency physicians, blinded to the form used, reviewed the database and independently decided whether an error had occurred and the severity of the error. RESULTS: Within the study period, there were 2157 visits to the ED. A total of 2058 (95.4%) charts were available for review. A total of 411 (52.2%) orders for drugs in the ED were ordered on the regular form, and 376 (47.8%) were given on the new form. Drug errors were identified in 68 (16.6%) orders when the regular form was used and in 37 (9.8%) of the orders on the new form. Using the new form was associated with a significant reduction in the risk for an error (odds ratio: 0.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a preprinted structured order form significantly reduces medication errors among pediatric patients in the ED.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".