Compliance With Inpatient Drug Use Process Steps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare nursing staff compliance over the years, per health care unit, and per drug use process step. METHODS: Compliance assessment was performed by nursing consultants with direct observation of the registered nurses and nursing assistants during the performance of 7 steps of the drug use process. A total of 36 compliance criteria were developed. The compliance to drug use process criteria was measured in 2007 (Prephase), 2008 (post 1), and 2011 (post 2). Totally, 10 health care units were evaluated, with a minimum of 10 doses evaluated per health care unit, including a minimum of 5 parental doses and a total of 100 nurses observed. RESULTS: A total of 142 nurses were observed in the prephase, 140 nurses in the post 1 phase, and 98 in the post 2 phase (90% regular staff and 10% float staff). The overall compliance rates went from 77% in 2007 up to 87% in 2008 and down to 78% in 2011. CONCLUSIONS: This cross-sectional observational study revealed a significant difference in the drug use process compliance in terms of drug preparation and drug administration for inpatients at the bedside, between 2007 and 2011.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".