Safe handling of hazardous drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This evidence-based practice guideline was developed to update and address new issues in the handling of hazardous drugs including being compliant with NAPRA (National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities) and USP 800 (United States Pharmacopeia) standards, the use of personal protective equipment and treatment in diverse settings including in the home setting. Methods: This guideline was developed from an adaptation and endorsement of existing guidelines and from three systematic reviews. Prior to publication, this guideline underwent a series of peer, patient, methodological and external reviews to gather feedback. All comments were addressed and the guideline was amended when required. This guideline applies to and is intended for all health care workers who may come into contact with hazardous drugs at any point in the medication circuit. Results: The recommendations represent a reasonable and practical set of procedures that the intended users of this guideline should implement to minimize the opportunity for accidental exposure. These recommendations are not limited to just the point of care, but cover the entire chain of handling of cytotoxics from the time they enter the institution until they leave in the patient or as waste. Conclusions: Decreasing the likelihood of accidental exposure to cytotoxic agents within the medication circuit is the main objective of this evidenced-based guideline. The recommendations differ slightly from previous guidelines due to new evidence.
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 | 0.020 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".