Un comité de révision des erreurs reliées aux médicaments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Un comite de revision des erreurs reliees aux medicaments a ete mis en place a l’automne 1999, a l’Hopital General Juif. Le comite a pour mandat de compiler et de reviser tous les rapports d’incidents recus, de conscientiser le personnel hospitalier, de faire des recommandations quant aux changements necessaires a une utilisation plus securitaire des medicaments dans le centre. Le comite a d’abord instaure un systeme de classification des rapports d’incidents par type de medicaments cibles, type d’erreurs et degre de severite. Abstract A committee to review medication-related errors was set up in the fall of 1999 at the Jewish General Hospital. The committee was mandated to compile and review all medication error reports, sensitize the staff and make recommendations regarding the changes necessary for the safer use of medications in the hospital. It first set up a system to classify reports according to medication, type of error and degree of severity. Following this classification, several interventions were carried out with varying success: • publication of leaflets • posted notices • changes to the nurse’s electronic medication administration record or to the computer system of the pharmacy • information sessions with professionals in the hospital • development of preprinted prescriptions • standardization of the use of high-risk medications • imposition of additional restrictions on prescriptions • physical changes to care units and pharmacy department • interventions with pharmaceutical companies The overall effect of these activities was to help improve safety in medication management in the hospital.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
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 | 0.016 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.007 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".