Proof of Concept and Pilot Study on the Development and Implementation of an Electronic Medication Administration Record
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract : The main objective is to describe the phases of electronic medication administration record development and implementation. The secondary objective is to compare dose information using medication administration record and electronic medication administration record. : Nursing daily work planning is usually done with the use of a medication administration record printed daily based on the information available in the Pharmacy Information System. : We identified six guiding principles. A profile compared to medication administration record and electronic medication administration record, revealed 19 parameters related to drug registration doses. Regarding the development phase, a total of 150 pharmacist hours and 150 nursing hours have been carried out on optimization of electronic medication administration record. During the preparatory pilot phase, voluntary nurses have been invited to identify problems associated with the electronic version. During the pilot phase, a training program was set up. We implemented the electronic medication administration record on 26 November 2014. The pilot study demonstrates that electronic medication administration record has been successfully implemented in a university hospital. : To our knowledge, this is the first pilot study conducted in Quebec that describes electronic medication administration record development and implementation. Our pilot study shows that we were able to face these challenges through the employment of human, financial and material resources.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it