MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754432758 · doi:10.1111/jocn.14077

Nurses’ clinical reasoning practices that support safe medication administration: An integrative review of the literature

2017· review· en· W2754432758 on OpenAlex
Emily Rohde, Elizabeth Domm

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersUniversity of Regina
KeywordsMedicineNursingPatient safetyMEDLINEHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To review the current literature about nurses' clinical reasoning practices that support safe medication administration. BACKGROUND: The literature about medication administration frequently focuses on avoiding medication errors. Nurses' clinical reasoning used during medication administration to maintain medication safety receives less attention in the literature. As healthcare professionals, nurses work closely with patients, assessing and intervening to promote mediation safety prior to, during and after medication administration. They also provide discharge teaching about using medication safely. Nurses' clinical reasoning and practices that support medication safety are often invisible when the focus is medication errors avoidance. DESIGN: An integrative literature review was guided by Whittemore and Knafl's (Journal of Advanced Nursing, 5, 2005 and 546) five-stage review of the 11 articles that met review criteria. This review is modelled after Gaffney et al.'s (Journal of Clinical Nursing, 25, 2016 and 906) integrative review on medical error recovery. METHODS: Health databases were accessed and systematically searched for research reporting nurses' clinical reasoning practices that supported safe medication administration. The level and quality of evidence of the included research articles were assessed using The Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Rating Scale©. RESULTS: Nurses have a central role in safe medication administration, including but not limited to risk awareness about the potential for medication errors. Nurses assess patients and their medication and use knowledge and clinical reasoning to administer medication safely. Results indicated nurses' use of clinical reasoning to maintain safe medication administration was inadequately articulated in 10 of 11 studies reviewed. CONCLUSION: Nurses are primarily responsible for safe medication administration. Nurses draw from their foundational knowledge of patient conditions and organisational processes and use clinical reasoning that supports safe medication practice. There was minimal evidence clearly articulating nurses' clinical reasoning used to support medication safety. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This review focused on finding evidence of nurses' clinical reasoning that supported safe medication administration.

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 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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.008
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 head0.461
GPT teacher head0.693
Teacher spread0.232 · 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