Conformity of commercial oral single solid unit dose packages in hospital pharmacy practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are limited published data on the labelling of single unit dose packages in hospitals. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted in three large hospitals (two adult and one paediatric) in the metropolitan Montreal area, Quebec, Canada. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to evaluate the labelling of commercial oral single solid unit dose packages available in Canadian urban hospital pharmacy practice. METHOD: The study endpoint was the labelling conformity of each unit dose package for each criterion and overall for each manufacturer. Complete labelling of unit dose packages should include the following information: (1) brand name, (2) international non-proprietary name or generic name, (3) dosage, (4) pharmaceutical form, (5) manufacturer's name, (6) expiry date, (7) batch number and (8) drug identification number. We also evaluated the ease with which a single unit dose package is detached from a multiple unit dose package for quick, easy and safe use by pharmacy staff. Conformity levels were compared between brand-name and generic packages. RESULTS: A total of 124 different unit dose packages were evaluated. The level of conformity of each criterion varied between 19 and 50%. Only 43% of unit dose packages provided an easy-to-detach system for single doses. Among the 14 manufacturers with three or more unit dose packages evaluated, eight (57%) had a conformity level less than 50%. CONCLUSION: This study describes the conformity of commercial oral single solid unit dose packages in hospital pharmacy practice in Quebec. A large proportion of unit dose packages do not conform to a set of nine criteria set out in the guidelines of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists and the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists.
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 | 0.022 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".