Enfermeros prescribiendo medicamentos en centros geriátricos: mapeo Internacional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen Objetivo: La meta de este estudio fue identificar la percepción de los enfermeros y médicos con respecto a los centros de atención de largo plazo, al mismo tiempo, explicar la intervención de los enfermeros en la prescripción médica. Metodología: estudio multinacional transversal en el que participaron enfermeros y médicos en centros de cuidado geriátrico durante las fechas de abril y octubre de 2017. Se utilizaron tres cuestionarios en línea en idiomas francés e inglés. Resultados: un 78.7% de médicos discutieron la relevancia que existe entre las prescripciones y enfermeros competentes. El mapeo demuestra la relación entre el nivel de evidencia que existe en el rol de enfermería y las prescripciones médicas, y enfermeros autorizados en los 51 países participantes. Conclusiones: La relacion interpersonal entre médicos y enfermeros es esencial para facilitar el rol de enfermería en el manejo de tratamientos eficientes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".