La distribution des substances contrôlées au bloc opératoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Objectif : L’objectif de cet article est d’evaluer le mode de gestion des substances controlees au bloc operatoire de l’Hopital Notre-Dame du Centre hospitalier de l’Universite de Montreal et de proposer des ameliorations. Mise en contexte : Le departement de pharmacie est responsable de la gestion efficace et securitaire des substances controlees au sein d’un etablissement de sante. Une evaluation de la situation indique deux problemes en ce qui concerne la gestion des substances controlees au bloc operatoire de l’Hopital Notre-Dame du Centre hospitalier de l’Universite de Montreal. Trois options ont ete envisagees : une pharmacie satellite, des cabinets decentralises et des boitiers standardises. La derniere option a ete retenue. Conclusion : La preparation de boitiers standardises par un assistant technique en pharmacie et l’utilisation d’une feuille de decompte par boitier pour un ensemble de substances peuvent ameliorer la gestion des substances controlees en etablissement de sante. Abstract Objective: This article evaluates and suggests improvements for the management of controlled substances in the operating room of the Hopital Notre-Dame, Centre hospitalier de l’Universite de Montreal. Context: The pharmacy department is responsible for the effective and safe management of controlled substances within a healthcare institution. Two problems were identified upon evaluation of controlled substances management in the operating room of the Hopital Notre-Dame. Three solutions are proposed: 1) a satellite pharmacy; 2) decentralized storage cabinets; or 3) standardized boxes, the last being considered the best solution. Conclusion: For a number of controlled substance, the preparation of standardized boxes by a pharmacy technical assistant as well as the use of one control sheet per box can improve the management of controlled substances in healthcare establishments. Key Words: controlled substances, narcotics, operating room.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".