MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333206519 · doi:10.1097/ncq.0b013e3181a4d506

Nurses' Responses to Medication Errors

2009· article· en· W2333206519 on OpenAlexaff
Christine L. Covell, Judith A. Ritchie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Care Quality · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRemedial educationMedication errorMEDLINEProcess (computing)Patient safetyMedicineNursingMedical emergencyPsychologyComputer scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to obtain a comprehensive understanding of how nurses respond to medication errors and identify strategies that nurses believe may improve reporting of these errors within hospitals. The findings suggest that nurses use a decision-making process when reporting medication errors. Medication error reporting may be improved by instituting a problem-solving approach to respectfully manage the event and providing nurses with clear guidelines, remedial education, and timely feedback.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.192
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations51
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Care QualitySame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207