Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Medication safety is crucial for critically ill patients with organ dysfunction exposed to polypharmacy. Our objective was to test an ‘Inventory for Medication Safety Interventions in the ICU’ (IMSI-ICU), developed based on a systematic review of strategies that impact on medication safety through error reduction, enhanced communication or institutional culture change. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that community and academic colleagues would find it to have face validity, and be easy to use, clear, complete, sensible, and reproducible. Methods: Preliminary drafts of the IMSI-ICU were created by medication safety experts from medicine, pharmacy, and nursing from ISMP Canada, ISMP US, McMaster University, University of Toronto, and Johns Hopkins University. For piloting testing, the IMSI-ICU was reviewed by 12 experts (3 pharmacists [Ph], 4 nurses [RNs], 4 physicians [MDs] and 1 ICU manager). Respondents were asked to provide feedback on item wording, flow, organization, and ease of completion. Formal clinical sensibility testing was completed by 1 Ph, 2 RNs, 5 MDs, and 1 manager using a 1 to 5 scale. For the test-retest exercise, the IMSI-ICU was administered 2 weeks apart to 16 persons in 4 centers in 3 cities. Results: Comments were favourable; pilot testing feedback was to shorten instructions, clarify item stems, allow selection of ‘unsure’, and provide examples, which resulted in a modified 44 item IMSI-ICU instrument. Clinical sensibility mean scores indicated that the items were important (4.6), complete (4.3), understandable (4.1), suitable (4.6), not redundant (4.7), and potentially discriminable (3.6). Of the 704 test-retest paired data points, 108 pairs had different responses, although most were mismatched by only 1 category and 23 pairs were mismatched by >1 category. Conclusions: The IMSI-ICU is a novel instrument for measuring effective medication safety interventions in practice. This 3 phase testing suggests that the IMSI-ICU has been pre-tested, is clinically sensible and reliable, and is ready to be completed by a multidisciplinary ICU team to examine its responsiveness in multicenter studies.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.683 | 0.581 |
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".