CSHP Summer Educational Sessions (SES) 2012: Poster Abstracts / Séances éducatives d’été (SÉÉ) 2012 de la SCPH : Résumés des affiches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An Evaluation of Inpatient Diabetes Care Management among Non-Critically Ill Patients in the General Internal Medicine Unit at a Large Canadian Teaching Hospital 2. The Cost-Impact of Using Patient's Own Multi-dose Medications in Hospital 3. Integration and Evaluation of Pharmacists on the Acute Resuscitation Team 4. Rural Telepharmacy-Implementation on a Provincial Scale 5. Enhancing Customer Satisfaction with Pharmacy Services in a Province-Wide Healthcare Organization 6. Evaluation of a Fall Risk Tool Including Medication Use 7. Development, Delivery and Assessment of an Interactive Infectious Disease Educational Series for Pharmacists 8. Identification of Hospital Pharmacists' Learning Needs 9. Development of a Regional Database of Pharmacy-Based Research and Quality Improvement Projects (CSHP 2015) Monday, August 12, 2012 • Mardi 13 août 2012 1.A Single-Center Experience of Voriconazole Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) in the Management of Leukemia/Bone Marrow Transplant (L/BMT) Patients 2. What Patients Want: Preferences Regarding Hospital Pharmacy Services (CSHP 2015) 3. Benchmarking Sedative-Hypnotic Drug Use in Nova Scotia Hospitals 4. Evaluation of Medication Turnaround Time Following Implementation of Digital Fax Technology for Prescriber Order Transmission to Pharmacy in a Tertiary Care Hospital 5. Conversion of Dialysis Patients from Epoetin Alfa to Darbepoetin Alfa is Cost-Saving in a Community Hospital Setting 6. Examining Trends in the Administration of "As Needed" Medications to Inpatients with Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia 7. Everything Including the Lipid Sink: Emergency Department Use of Intravenous Lipid Emulsion for Amitriptyline Overdose 8. Characterization of Renal Dysfunction in a Cohort of Adult HIV-Infected Patients: A Retrospective, Observational Case-Control StudyThe texts of poster abstracts are published exactly as submitted by the authors and have not undergone any copyediting by the Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy.Le Journal canadien de la pharmacie hospitalière n'a pas soumis le texte des résumés des affiches à une révision linguistique et les publie ici tels que remis par les auteurs.CSHP 2015 is a quality program that sets out a vision of pharmacy practice excellence in the year 2015.Through this project, CSHP challenges hospital pharmacists to reach measurable targets for 36 objectives grouped under 6 goals, all aimed toward the effective, scientific, and safe use of medications and meaningful contributions to public health.CSHP 2015 applies to inpatients and outpatients, community and hospital pharmacists, and all practice settings.Posters identified with a "CSHP 2015" logo are those judged by the CSHP 2015 Steering Committee to be particularly relevant to one or more of the 36 objectives.Le projet SCPH 2015 est un programme axé sur la qualité qui propose une vision de l'excellence en pratique pharmaceutique en l'an 2015.Au moyen de ce projet, la SCPH met les pharmaciens d'établissements au défi d'atteindre les cibles mesurables de 36 objectifs répartis entre 6 buts, visant tous l'utilisation efficace, scientifique et sûre des médicaments ainsi que des contributions significatives à la santé publique.Le projet SCPH 2015 s'applique aux patients hospitalisés et externes, aux pharmaciens d'hôpitaux et communautaires, et à tous les milieux de pratique.Les affiches marquées du logo « SCPH 2015 » sont celles que le comité directeur du projet SCPH 2015 a jugé particulièrement appropriées à l'un ou l'autre des 36 objectifs.Results: Of the 250 patients admitted, 20.4% were prescribed a multidose medication.Verification was completed for 67 of 85 prescribed items, of which 91% were suitable for use.Thirty-five different medication types were identified, with 67% on formulary.The most common routes of administration were inhalation (66%), nasal (11%) and ophthalmic (9%).The average cost was $24.54 ± 32.33 per multi-dose item.The time required for verification was 10.5 ± 6.7 minutes per patient (5.2 ± 3.3 minutes per medication).The costimpact was calculated as the difference between the drug cost (routine hospital dispensing) and the cost of home medication verification.A one-sample t-test was conducted.The cost-impact per patient was $40.05 ± 42.60 (P-value < 0.001) (mean $18.85 ± 15.42 per medication).A total cost-saving of $1601.85 was found.Conclusion: The cost-impact of using patient's own multi-dose medications as compared to routine dispensing resulted in a costsavings of 74%, inclusive of labour costs for pharmacist verification.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.332 | 0.052 |
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".