MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387520353 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.3436

Une chambre des erreurs comme moyen d’apprentissage dans une faculté de pharmacie

2023· article· en· W4387520353 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amal Ayed, Kaouther Zribi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Safety and Medication Errors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternshipPharmacyMedicineMedical prescriptionMedical educationPatient safetyFamily medicineHealth careNursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hospitalization can expose patients to numerous adverse events associated with their care. To make health care professionals aware of these events, medication errors were simulated using the “room of errors” model. Objectives: To describe the methods of implementing a “room of errors” and to evaluate participants’ performance in identifying errors. Methodology: This cross-sectional descriptive simulation study was carried out in the experimental pharmacy of a faculty of pharmacy over 2 days in December 2021 and January 2022. The study involved pharmacy interns and residents at various stages of their internships. Results: Thirty-six interns and 8 residents participated in the “room of errors” workshop. The overall correct response rate was 70.8% (n = 269/380). The error detection rate was 45.3% for pharmacy interns and 57.5% for residents, although this difference was not statistically significant. Certain hazards were identified by the majority of students (soiled compress on the treatment trolley, prescription of acetaminophen to a patient with an allergy to this drug), whereas others were rarely identified (a box containing food in the refrigerator, an empty bottle for hand sanitizer). Respondents to the satisfaction survey mainly considered this workshop to be a useful educational tool and would like to see this type of workshop integrated into their training. Conclusion: The “room of errors” seems to be an effective way of raising awareness about the risks associated with hospitalization and patient safety. This type of tool should be integrated into education and training programs. RÉSUMÉ Contexte : L’hospitalisation peut exposer les patients à de multiples évènements indésirables associés aux soins. Pour sensibiliser les professionnels de la santé à ces évènements, une simulation d’erreurs de médication a été créée en utilisant le modèle « Chambre des erreurs ». Objectifs : Les objectifs étaient de décrire les modalités de mise en œuvre d’une chambre des erreurs et d’évaluer la performance des participants dans l’identification des erreurs. Méthodologie : Il s’agit d’une étude descriptive transversale en simulation réalisée dans la pharmacie expérimentale à la faculté de Pharmacie sur une période de deux jours en décembre 2021 et janvier 2022. Ce travail a recueilli les internes et résidents en pharmacie à différents stades de leurs stages. Résultats : Trente-six internes et huit résidents ont participé à l’atelier « chambre des erreurs ». Le taux global de réponses correctes était de 70,8 % (n=269/380). Le taux de détection des erreurs était de 45,3 % pour les internes en pharmacie et de 57,5 % pour les résidents sans toutefois que cette différence ne soit statistiquement significative. Certains dangers ont été identifiés par la majorité des étudiants (compresse souillée sur le chariot de soins, prescription de l’acétaminophène à une patiente allergique) tandis que d’autres ont été rarement identifiés (une boite contenant de la nourriture au réfrigérateur, un flacon de solution hydroalcoolique vide). Les répondants au questionnaire de satisfaction ont principalement considéré cet atelier comme un outil pédagogique très intéressant et ont souhaité que ce type d’atelier soit intégré dans leur formation. Conclusion : La chambre des erreurs semble être une méthode efficace de sensibiliser aux risques liés à l’hospitalisation et la sécurité des patients. D’où la nécessité d’intégrer cet outil dans les programmes d’éducation et de formation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital PharmacySame topicPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsFrench-language works237,207