Cuidados de enfermagem e segurança do paciente: visualizando a organização, acondicionamento e distribuição de medicamentos com método de pesquisa fotográfica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neste estudo qualitativo, adaptou-se o metodo de pesquisa fotografica de estudos anteriores, para identificar fatores relacionados a organizacao, acondicionamento e distribuicao que poderiam levar a erros na selecao, preparo e administracao de medicamentos. O recorte da pesquisa apresentado foi desenvolvido em unidade de clinica medica de um hospital publico, Brasil. Os participantes da pesquisa foram enfermeiros que trabalhavam naquela unidade e academicos dos dois ultimos semestres do curso de graduacao em Enfermagem. Obtiveram-se fotografias digitais do sistema de medicacao e, subsequentemente, utilizou-se a elicitacao das fotos para rever imagens com os participantes da pesquisa, a fim de obter suas percepcoes e narrativas a respeito do trabalho com medicamentos, naquela unidade. Apresenta-se uma selecao dos principais achados da pesquisa sobre organizacao, acondicionamento e distribuicao de medicamentos, indicando que ha espaco para melhorar a seguranca do sistema de medicacao.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".