Benefits of Reporting and Analyzing Nursing Students' Near-Miss Medication Incidents
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
BACKGROUND: Developing competencies in reporting medication errors and near-miss incidents is a critical component of nursing student education. The benefits of reporting near-miss incidents by nursing students are unknown. PURPOSE: The aim was to analyze nursing students' near-miss incident reports for types of incidents and their contributing factors, assess the effectiveness of current procedures in catching these errors, and offer guidance on curricular improvements for medication administration content. METHOD: This quality improvement project analyzed 3 years of near-miss incidents (N = 236) submitted through the school's incident reporting system. RESULTS: Five incident types accounted for 81.4% of incidents. Factors contributing to most incidents were communication (47.9%), competency and education (44.1%), environmental/human limitations (35.2%), and policies/procedures (29.2%). CONCLUSION: Safety experts emphasize that near-miss reports offer free lessons to prevent future errors. Nursing students' near-miss reporting is beneficial for both students and nursing programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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