Survey of Pharmacists Regarding the Use of Propofol Infusions in the PICUs in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this survey was to assess the current use of continuous infusion propofol in PICUs across the United States and Canada. METHODS: A list of institutions with PICU beds/units was identified through the residency directories available on the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists (ASHP) and Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists (CHSP) Web sites. A REDCap questionnaire was sent to each identified institution's program director via email. An initial reminder email was sent out 2 weeks later and a second reminder email was sent 4 weeks after the initial request. The survey was closed at 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 514 emails were sent to residency program directors, and 50 pharmacists responded to the survey. Of the pharmacists that did respond, 27 (54%) reported using propofol while 23 (46%) did not. Of those that did not, 43.5% reported the FDA boxed warning as the primary reason. Thirty-seven percent of respondents using propofol felt comfortable using a maximum infusion rate of 200 mcg/kg/min. Twenty-nine percent, 25%, and 33% of those who responded as using propofol felt comfortable using this agent for a maximum duration of 24, 48, and 72 hours, respectively. The majority of respondents using propofol did not have a case of propofol-related infusion syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the FDA warning, propofol is used as a continuous infusion (with variable limitations) by a majority of pharmacists in North America. Self-reported incidence of propofol-related infusion syndrome (PRIS) remains low.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".