Iranian Nurses’ Experiences on Obstacles of Safe Drug Administration: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Safety maintenance and prevention of damage to patients caused by errors in nursing have a special importance, and a lack of sufficient attention to the correct principles of drug administration can lead to the patient' health threats and reducing safety.The administration of drugs is complex and influenced by many factors, particularly in pediatric wards; thus, the present study aimed to explain pediatric nurses' experiences on obstacles to safe drug administration. METHODS: In this study, the qualitative approach and content analysis method were used. Twenty pediatric nurses involved in medication administration were selected for participation using purposive sampling. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews. Using continuous analysis, data collection and comparison were performed at the same time. RESULTS: From the data analysis, 4 main themes were extracted. Working pressure, lack of drug resources, insufficient colleague performance, and lack of experience and knowledge in drug administration were four main themes obtained from study. CONCLUSION: Care managers can identify obstacles to safe medication administration to improve patient safety. For which necessary measures must be taken to remove them and to enhance patient safe care provided by nurses.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".