Evaluasi Kesesuaian Penyimpanan Obat Di Salah Satu Apotek Kota Cimahi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penyimpanan merupakan salah satu faktor utama dalam pemeliharaan mutu obat dengan menyimpan secara tepat dan sesuai dengan standar yang telah ditetapkan, jika hal tersebut tidak dilakukan akan menyebabkan mutu obat tidak terjamin selama penyimpanan di apotek. Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengetahui bagaimana penyimpanan obat dan seberapa besar persentase kesesuaian sistem penyimpanan obat di salah satu Apotek Kota Cimahi Berdasarkan Petunjuk Teknis Standar Pelayanan Kefarmasian di Apotek Tahun 2019. Penelitian menggunakan metode observasional yang bersifat deskriptif dan evaluasi menggunakan lembar tabel checklist. Penyimpanan obat di salah satu Apotek Kota Cimahi disimpan berdasarkan bentuk sediaan, kelas terapi, stabilitas serta ditata secara alfabetis dengan sistem pengeluaran menggunakan sistem FEFO. Sistem penyimpanan obat di apotek yang sesuai dengan Petunjuk Teknis Standar Pelayanan Kefarmasian yaitu sebesar 86,36 % sedangkan yang tidak sesuai dengan Petunjuk Teknis Standar Pelayanan Kefarmasian yaitu sebesar 13,64% diantaranya penyimpanan LASA atau NORUM yang berdekatan, pencatatan pada kartu stok yang kurang optimal dan tidak adanya listrik cadangan. Sistem penyimpanan di salah satu Apotek Kota Cimahi belum sepenuhnya sesuai dengan Petunjuk Teknis Standar Pelayanan Kefarmasian.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.005 |
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".