MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094223138 · doi:10.1186/s12887-020-02384-3

A modified Delphi to define drug dosing errors in pediatric critical care

2020· article· en· W3094223138 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nadia Roumeliotis, Eleanor Pullenayegum, Paula A. Rochon, Anna Taddio, Chris Parshuram

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pediatrics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesWomen's College HospitalSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoPublic Health OntarioHospital for Sick Children
FundersGroupe canadien de recherche en soins intensifsHospital for Sick ChildrenBC Children's HospitalMcMaster University
KeywordsDosingMedicineIntensive care medicineDelphi methodMEDLINEEmergency medicinePharmacologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is no globally accepted definition for dosing error in adult or pediatric practice. The definition of pediatric dosing error varies greatly in the literature. The objective of this study was to develop a framework, informed by a set of principles, for a clinician-based definition of drug dosing errors in critically ill children, and to identify the range that practitioners agree is a dosing error for different drug classes and clinical scenarios. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide three staged modified Delphi from May to December 2019. Expert clinicians included Canadian pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) physicians, pharmacists and nurses, with a least 5 years' experience. Outcomes were underlying principles of drug dosing, and error thresholds, as defined by proportion above and below reference range, for common PICU medications and clinical scenarios. RESULTS: Forty-four participants met eligibility, and response rates were 95, 86 and 84% for all three rounds respectively. Consensus was achieved for 13 of 15 principles, and 23 of 30 error thresholds. An over-dosed drug that is intercepted, an under-dose of a possibly life-saving medication, dosing 50% above or below target range and not adjusting for a drug interaction were agreed principles of dosing error. Altough there remained much uncertainty in defining dosing error, expert clinicians agreed that, for most medication categories and clinical scenarios, dosing over or below 10% of reference range was considered an error threshold. CONCLUSION: Dosing principles and threshold are complex in pediatric critical care, and expert clinicians were uncertain about whether many scenarios were considered in error. For most intermittent medications, dosing over 10% below or above reference range was considered a dosing error, although this was largely influenced by clinical context and drug properties. This consensus driven error threshold will help guide routine clinical dosing practice, standardized reporting and drug quality improvement in pediatric critical care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.134
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.109
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1340.109
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.134
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC PediatricsSame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207