The effect of a short tutorial on the incidence of prescribing errors in pediatric emergency care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the paediatric emergency department (ED) trainees are more likely to commit prescribing errors. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a short educational intervention reduces the incidence of prescribing errors among trainees in a pediatric ED. METHODS: A prospective cohort study at the ED of a tertiary paediatric hospital. All fellows and residents arriving at the ED at the beginning of the academic year were invited to participate in a 30-minute tutorial focusing on appropriate methods for prescribing medications, followed by a written test. Eighteen days were selected randomly during July 2001. All the charts from these days were reviewed for medication errors. Two reviewers, blinded to whether or not a particular physician attended the tutorial, independently decided whether or not an error had occurred. The main outcome measure was the number of prescribing errors. RESULTS: Twenty-two trainees worked in the ED during July 2001. Of these, 13 trainees attended the tutorial. Eight hundred and ninety nine orders given by trainees were evaluated. We identified 66 (12.4%) errors in 533 orders given by those who attended tutorial, and 46 (12.7%) errors in 363 orders given by those who did not attend tutorial. The adjusted odds of a medication error was not significantly different between those who did not attend the tutorial and those who did (OR: 1.07 95% CI: 0.66-1.70). CONCLUSIONS: A short tutorial, followed by a written test, administered to trainees before entering their rotation in the paediatric ED, did not appear to reduce prescribing errors.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".