Assistência segura ao paciente no preparo e administração de medicamentos
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the compliance with the assistance and the adhesion of nursing professionals for the safe administration of drugs in an Intensive Care Unit of a public hospital in Sergipe, Brazil. METHOD Quantitative, descriptive and cross-sectional study carried out by direct non-participant observation. Data collection performed in 2015. Non-probabilistic sample, for convenience, consisting in the observation of 557 doses of prepared and administered drugs. For data analysis, descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. RESULTS The items classified as safe care were: correct via (85.7%) and correct form (100%). The items classified as undesirable care were: correct patient (33.3%), correct medication (66.67%), correct dose (50%), correct register (33.33%), correct orientation (0%), and correct time (50%). CONCLUSION The practice was evaluated according to Carte's positivity index as undesirable care, considering that six of the eight items had low adhesion. The found weaknesses compromised the whole process of drug 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
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 it