Mitigating Risks Associated with Secondary Intravenous (Iv) Infusions: An Empirical Evaluation of a Technology-Based, A Practice-Based, And a Training-Based Intervention
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
Multiple intravenous (IV) infusions are commonly used in the clinical setting to administer numerous fluids and medications to patients. Secondary infusion , also known as piggyback infusion , is a specific multiple IV infusion setup to deliver intermittent medications. Errors related to the setup and administration of secondary infusions have led to patient safety concerns[1, 2]. However, there is currently no study that specifically aims to empirically test the effects of interventions on the safety of secondary infusions in the clinical setting. The objective of this experimental study was to empirically evaluate interventions that may reduce errors during the administration of secondary infusions. Three mitigating strategies (a technology-based, a practice-based, and a training-based intervention) were tested. Forty critical care nurse participants performed secondary infusion tasks in a high-fidelity simulated clinical environment, with and without interventions. The types and frequency of errors were collected. The effects of the interventions on workflow and the reduction of secondary infusion errors were investigated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it