To what extent do cancer centres in Arab countries adhere to ASCO/ONS chemotherapy administration safety standards? A multicentre cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which cancer centres in Arab countries adhere to the 2016 American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society (ASCO/ONS) chemotherapy administration safety standards. DESIGN: Multicentre cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Sample of the largest cancer treatment facilities across 10 Arab countries, including governmental, private, university-affiliated and daycare centres where chemotherapy is administered. PARTICIPANTS: A multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals (including head nurses, oncologists, oncology pharmacists and quality staff) at each centre completed a structured survey on adherence to the ASCO/ONS chemotherapy administration safety standards. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of cancer centres fully implementing each of the 46 ASCO/ONS safety standards, grouped into four domains: (1) creating a safe environment-staffing and general policy; (2) treatment planning, patient consent and education; (3) ordering, preparing, dispensing and administering chemotherapy; and (4) monitoring after chemotherapy administration. RESULTS: Of the 25 centres invited, 19 (76%) participated. The domain most frequently fully implemented was treatment planning, patient consent and education (12/19 centres, 63.2%). The remaining domains were fully implemented by four centres or fewer. The lowest implementation was observed for standards requiring policies for documentation and follow-up of patients who miss or cancel scheduled visits or chemotherapy treatments. Centres accredited by the Joint Commission International and those that specifically reported adherence to internationally recognised oncology guidelines were more likely to fully implement specific domains of the ASCO/ONS chemotherapy administration safety standards. CONCLUSIONS: Significant gaps exist in the implementation of ASCO/ONS chemotherapy administration safety standards at cancer centres across Arab countries. These findings highlight opportunities for targeted interventions and policy development to improve chemotherapy safety in the region.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".