Evaluation of pharmacy-supplied half and quarter tablets at an academic medical center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Manipulation of tablet medications to produce a customized dose is common practice, and splitting tablets may reduce the acquisition cost of the medication. However, cost savings may be diminished by the cost of the increased labor and repackaging materials needed when splitting tablets. Splitting tablets may also result in safety concerns if the final products are under (eg, reduced benefit) or over (eg, toxicity) the desired dosage. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to evaluate and recommend changes for all half- and quarter-tablet medications prepared and distributed from the inpatient pharmacy at University of Utah Health (U of U Health). SUMMARY: The evaluation included all half- and quarter-tablet medications prepared by pharmacy technicians for administration to patients admitted to U of U Health hospitals. A final list of 173 half- and quarter-tablet dosages was evaluated for opportunities to decrease the total number. On the basis of the developed criteria, 93 half- and quarter-tablet dosages (54%) were recommended to be removed from routine stock in the inpatient pharmacy. Systems remain in place to create customized half and quarter tablets if required for patient care. CONCLUSION: Reducing the number of medications for which half and quarter tablets are used may allow pharmacy technicians to prioritize other patient care tasks and potentially decrease waste.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".