Evaluation of medication errors in pediatric patients using antibiotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medication errors are frequently seen in pediatric patients. Medication error studies on pediatric cases were found to not only be limited but also the collaboration of clinical pharmacists and physicians on this topic was not published in Turkey. This study aimed to identify drug-related problems, especially in antibiotics. METHODS: This study was a point prevalence study with pediatric inpatients that used at least one antibiotic at a pediatric tertiary care reference hospital on November 16, 2016. Medications of patients were evaluated by clinical pharmacists in terms of drug-related problems and by physicians in terms of correct indications. RESULTS: Eighty-nine hospitalized patients were using antibiotics at the time of the study. The median age was 42 months (range: 1-226 months), and 49 (55.1%) of the patients were male. Clinical pharmacists detected a total of 210 potential drug-drug interactions in 46 (51.7%) patients. Approximately 48.5% of the patients in pediatric wards and 52.4% of the patients in surgical wards had at least one potential drug-drug interaction. A total of 39 medication errors were identified in 36 patients` drug orders. Most of the errors (51.3%) were due to dosing and administration time errors (35.9%). The number of errors per patient in surgical services was higher (0.47) than the pediatric services (0.42). Forty-three percent of errors were antimicrobial-related, and 70.5% of them were classified as dosing errors. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of patients` drug usage by a clinical pharmacist in terms of drug-related problems such as drug interactions, side effects and prescribing errors leads to better pharmaceutical 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".