Patient access to compounded drugs in paediatrics after discharge from a tertiary centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the problems faced by young patients and their parents when obtaining and using compounded drugs. METHODS: This prospective observational descriptive study included patients 0 to 21 years of age who were discharged from a mother-child tertiary hospital with a prescription containing at least one compounded drug between February 2016 and July 2016. Families were called 7 to 10 business days after discharge to complete a telephone follow-up questionnaire. Retail pharmacies were contacted to obtain additional information in order to compare the dispensed compounded drug with the prescription and published master formulas. RESULTS: The parents of 71 patients with a median age of 6.9 months were surveyed regarding 99 compounded drugs corresponding to 34 different oral formulations. Out of 314 issues identified, 252 were considered as problems: 9 involved major and 243 minor problems with real or potential consequences. CONCLUSION: This study identified a significant number of compounding-related problems. It suggests that current practice standards are insufficient and action should be taken to improve the use and the dispensation of compounded drugs to ensure patients' safety.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".