MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262721931 · doi:10.1200/jop.2015.005892

ReCAP: Comparison of Independent Error Checks for Oral Versus Intravenous Chemotherapy

2016· article· en· W2262721931 on OpenAlexaffabout
Melissa Griffin, Rachel E. Gilbert, Larry Broadfield, Anthony E. Easty, Patricia Trbovich

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oncology Practice · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkCancer Care Nova ScotiaCapital District Health AuthorityNova Scotia Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)PharmacyChemotherapyCancerMedical prescriptionPharmacistFamily medicineIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineNursingSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

QUESTION ASKED: In the United States, research has found that oral chemotherapy is subject to fewer safeguards than are in routine use for intravenous (IV) chemotherapy; however, less is known about the Canadian context. The objective of this study was to determine whether similar safeguards, in the form of independent checks, existed to identify potential errors related to IV and oral chemotherapy formulations in a particular cancer system. SUMMARY ANSWER: In the cancer system studied, a total of 57 systematic checks were identified for IV chemotherapy, whereas only six systematic checks were identified for oral chemotherapy. Community pharmacists were the only qualified professionals involved in independent, systematic checking of oral chemotherapy, which occurred during ordering and dispensing. METHODS: Human factors specialists conducted observations and interviews in cancer center clinics, a cancer center pharmacy, and four community pharmacies across Nova Scotia. Processes were analyzed to determine whether an independent check was performed, which qualified provider completed the check, and at what point of the process the check occurred. BIAS, CONFOUNDING FACTOR(S), DRAWBACKS: This study had some limitations. Although there are many forms of safeguards (eg, preprinted orders), only one type of safeguard (ie, independent checks) was examined in the cancer system studied. We chose to focus on independent checks because they were observable and were defined in the cancer center’s policies. Another limitation was that just a single jurisdiction (Nova Scotia), and four community pharmacies were examined. We examined each community pharmacy in detail, and sites were chosen to be representative (eg, rural versus urban). Further, the model used to deliver oral chemotherapy in Nova Scotia is not unique; a number of other provinces share similar models. REAL-LIFE IMPLICATIONS: There is an enormous opportunity for pharmacists and other qualified professionals to take on an expanded role in improving patient safety for oral chemotherapy. Oral chemotherapy, like IV chemotherapy, is known to be potentially hazardous, but in the cancer system studied, there were dramatically fewer independent checks associated with all aspects of oral chemotherapy–related processes. Greater involvement of pharmacists, both in the clinic environment and the community, would facilitate increased systematic checking, which could improve patient safety related to oral chemotherapy. [Figure: see text]

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.275
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oncology PracticeSame topicPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesFrench-language works237,207