Understanding medication recycling practices in Canadian hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medication recycling within hospitals has proven financial and possible environmental benefits according to local evaluations done in British Columbia. Despite this, the extent of medication recycling in Canadian hospitals remains unclear in the literature. OBJECTIVE(S): To determine if Canadian hospitals recycle medications, provide an estimate of how much medication is recycled by dosage form, and identify medication recycling barriers through the distribution of a cross-sectional survey. METHODS: A nine-question survey was distributed to 171 hospital pharmacy departments across Canada that consented to complete the survey. The survey identified whether sites recycled unused medications, an estimate of how much is recycled based on dosage form, and barriers to recycling. KEY FINDINGS: Of 62 respondents, the majority indicated they do have medication recycling procedures; however, the frequency of recycling is suboptimal (30-50% of medications are not recycled), and not all medication types are always recycled. Individually packaged oral tablets were most often recycled, and oral liquid medications were least often recycled. Many multi-dose medications were not tamper-proofed. Most respondents selected "sanitization/infection control" and "resource constraint" as reasons for not recycling all medications. CONCLUSIONS: Among respondents, the proportion and type of unused medicines that are recycled varied. For sites that did not respond, this might suggest that medication recycling is not a priority. This could represent a missed opportunity to standardize practices and increase medication recycling in hospitals, both of which could represent a meaningful step towards responsible use of medications and reduction of negative impacts on human health and the environment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".