Survey of Nursing Perceptions of Medication Administration Practices, Perceived Sources of Errors and Reporting Behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In January 2003, St. Mary's Hospital Center in Montreal, Quebec, established an interdisciplinary Committee on the Systematic Approach to Medication Error Control to review the whole process of medication administration within the hospital and to develop a systematic approach to medication error control. A cross-sectional survey on medication administration practices, perceived sources of errors and medication error reporting of nurses, adapted from a nursing practice survey and medication variance report (Sim and Joyner 2002), was conducted over a two-week period in February 2004. The results were analyzed by years of experience (greater or less than five years) and patient care unit of practice. The perceived source of error most often cited was transcription (processing), and the second most frequently cited source was the legibility of handwritten medication orders (prescribing). The results demonstrate no significant difference in medication safety practices or in perceptions of errors by years of experience. Nurses appear to adapt to the safety culture of the unit rather quickly, certainly within their first five years on the unit. Good medication error reporting behaviour was noted, with no differences between all comparative groups within both years of experience and unit of practice. Quality improvement initiatives to improve the safety of medication administration practices have included the development of a nursing medication administration handbook, the revision of policies and procedures related to medication administration safety, the standardization of solutions and limited variety of high-risk medication dosages and the reduction of handwritten reorders. The need for ongoing education and information sessions on policies and procedures specific to safe medication practices for all nurses, regardless of years of experience, was identified.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".