Gestion des défectuosités des fournitures pharmaceutiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectifs : Dans les départements de pharmacie, les fournitures défectueuses sont inévitables. Cette situation est importante à gérer afin de préserver la satisfaction et de prodiguer des soins de qualité. Il devient intéressant de créer un formulaire permettant d’informer rapidement les fabricants ou les fournisseurs de la défectuosité des fournitures pharmaceutiques, dès la constatation du problème et généralement avant l’utilisation du produit. Description de la problématique : La première étape consistait à analyser des fournitures présentant le plus fréquemment des défauts, puis faire des recherches en ligne sur des bases de données médicales et dans la base de données de Santé Canada. Un formulaire simplifié a ensuite été créé pour garantir la collecte précise d’informations et la transmission correcte aux compagnies. L’élaboration d’une procédure s’en est suivie. Résolution de la problématique : Pendant les quatre semaines de ce projet, un formulaire de déclaration de fournitures défectueuses a été créé, ainsi qu’une procédure de gestion des fournitures pharmaceutiques. Néanmoins, un obstacle majeur s’est présenté sous forme de lenteur administrative lors de la communication avec les compagnies. Conclusion : La création d’un formulaire de déclaration de fournitures pharmaceutiques défectueuses avant leur emploi dans un hôpital est utile pour garantir la qualité des soins ainsi que la sécurité des patients et du personnel et pour informer le fabricant ou le fournisseur. En facilitant la communication entre le Département de pharmacie et les fournisseurs, le formulaire contribue à une gestion plus efficace des fournitures pharmaceutiques et renforce la culture de la sécurité au sein de l’établissement. Summary Objectives: Defective supplies are inevitable in pharmacy departments. This situation is important to manage to maintain satisfaction and provision of quality care. A form allowing staff to quickly inform manufacturers or providers of defective pharmaceutical supplies, as soon as the problem is identified and generally before the product is used, would be useful. Problem description: The first step was to identify which supplies were most frequently found to be defective and then conduct online research of medical databases and Health Canada’s database. A simplified form was then created to ensure accurate information collection and adequate transmission to companies. A procedure was then developed. Problem resolution: During the four week project, a form for reporting defective supplies was created, and a procedure for managing pharmacy supplies was written. However, a major obstacle was the administrative delays in communicating with companies. Conclusion: The creation of a form for reporting defective pharmacy supplies prior to their use in-hospital is useful for ensuring quality of care as well as patient and staff safety and for informing the manufacturer or supplier. By facilitating communication between the department of pharmacy and suppliers, the form contributes to more effective management of pharmacy supplies and reinforces the culture of safety.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".