MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283519118 · doi:10.31083/ph.2022.12025

High-alert medications for hospitalised paediatric patients – a two-step survey among paediatric clinical expert pharmacists in Germany

2022· article· en· W4283519118 on OpenAlexaff
S Schilling, J A Koeck, U Kontny, T Orlikowsky, H Erdmann, Albrecht Eisert

Bibliographic record

Venue˜Die œPharmazie · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDosingPsychological interventionPharmacyPharmacistClinical pharmacyDrugMEDLINEPediatricsFamily medicineIntensive care medicinePharmacologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paediatric patients are more vulnerable to be harmed by medication errors compared to adults due to pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes in their development, individual dosing calculations, and manipulation of ready to-use products intended for adult patients. According to the Institute of Safe Medication Practices, there are some "drugs that bear a heightened risk of causing significant patient harm when they are used in error"; these drugs are called high-alert medications (HAM). The two-step survey among paediatric clinical expert pharmacists presented here aimed to compile a nation-wide HAM list. To provide detailed guidance, this survey followed a drugbased approach, resulting in specific potential drug related problems (DRPs) and associated recommendations for prevention. In contrast to this approach, in the first round of the survey two drug classes were included that both were rated as HAM (i.e.chemotherapy and parenteral nutrition). Twenty single drugs were identified as HAM, 65% of which were cardiovascular or neurological drugs. The paediatric expert pharmacists mentioned in total 216 potential DRPs; in particular, they identified potential administration-related problems (28% of all DRPs), dosing-related problems (26%), and drug-choice-related problems (18%, e.g.drug confusion and drug monitoring). Moreover, they suggested 275 potential interventions to address these DRPs. Two thirds of all interventions dealt with the preparation by the hospital pharmacy, standardisation of processes (e.g.labelling), and education or training. In conclusion, this survey provided a German paediatric high-alert medication list from a paediatric pharmacist point of view. Moreover, the experts mentioned for the first time specific potential DRPs and associated interventions to guide a local multidisciplinary approach for preventing medication-related harm in children.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜Die œPharmazieSame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207