Descriptive analysis of pro re nata medication use at a Canadian psychiatric hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pro re nata (PRN), a Latin phrase meaning 'as needed', is used to describe medications that might be used in specific situations, in addition to regularly-scheduled medications, such as when a patient is particularly anxious, experiencing insomnia, or suffering pain. While helpful in some circumstances, PRN are associated with an increased risk of morbidity, overuse, dependence, and polypharmacy. There is also a dearth of medical literature describing current practices and trends of PRN administration in mental health facilities, especially in Canada, and the literature that does exist is limited by poor documentation practices. Therefore, the primary objective of the current study was to understand the reason (purpose), frequency, use, documentation practices, and outcome (i.e. effectiveness, side-effects) of PRN medication use on inpatient units. Data were pulled to capture a snapshot of PRN administrations over a 3-month period, and included information related to the administration of the PRN medication, such as time of administration, type and dose of PRN medication, and prescribed indication, as well as patient-specific information. Results indicated that approximately 8200 psychotropic PRN medications were administered during the designated 3-month time period, and over 90% of patients received at least one PRN. Most of these were benzodiazepines, followed by antipsychotics. Further analyses were conducted to determine other characteristics of PRN use patterns and to provide a baseline of understanding that will inform future research to investigate the practice of PRN administration to psychiatric inpatients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".