Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Hospital Infection: From Miasmas to MRSA J. K. Crellin Graham A. J. Ayliffe and Mary P. English. Hospital Infection: From Miasmas to MRSA. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003. xiii + 274 pp. Ill. $95.00 (cloth, 0-521-81935-0), $38.00 (paperbound, 0-521-53178-0). In starting with theories of contagion/infection in the Middle Ages and ending with present-day issues over hospital infection, Graham Aycliffe and Mary English (with careers in microbiology and mycology) offer a very broad sweep. Historians may well categorize the book as an "internal" history preoccupied with names and dates of milestones, and with plotting progress—but they must not dismiss the real merits of the study. It has the value of bringing together information on an extremely important topic at a time of growing fears of major epidemics. Ayliffe and English close their account with comments on the present and future that are hardly reassuring—and that is without covering the SARS outbreak, which, in Toronto in 2003, uncovered both problems of and mistakes in infection control in large hospitals. Yet while this is essential reading for all those concerned with hospital infection, more insights could have come from a closer look at the social, cultural, and idiosyncratic factors that have been, and are, very much part of the story. One such topic is the way theory—for instance, the concept of cross-infection—has shaped practice over time: although one chapter, "Theories of Infection: From Miasmas to Microbes" (pp. 87-103), spotlights miasma/contagionist controversies, the reader is really given no feeling for the long-standing uncertainties and controversies over just how a disease is "caught," nor for how the diverse opinions affected decisions in hospital planning and management. (It is not without interest that beliefs of miasmatic causes were not entirely absent from last year's public fears about SARS.) Another topic, "hospitalism," might well have been explored in much more detail. The authors indicate that the term, popularized by James Young Simpson, covered hospital-acquired septic infections (p. 83)—but it extended beyond this: by the end of the 1800s, for example, it was even applied to children in hospital who developed loss of weight, indeed a state of marasmus. Hospitalism could have been used to tease out the interplay of concepts of hygiene, the quality of the air, miasms, and microorganisms. The book is most rewarding in its coverage of the last fifty years or so, due to the firsthand experiences of the authors. They provide (with emphasis on the [End Page 167] United Kingdom) a clear outline of milestones. However, their exploration of sociocultural factors remains limited. It would perhaps have been useful to examine the kind of mistakes made by hospital personnel that have sometimes led to a breakdown in the application of well-founded principles and improvements associated with the development of central sterile supply departments, increased commercial (rather than within the hospital) production of sterile fluids, and disposable syringes and needles. One suggestion (relevant to all recent history) is to consider the insights from oral history, perhaps along the lines of the successful series Wellcome Witnesses to Twentieth-Century Medicine (now in its seventeenth volume). Oral history, too, may well point up ethical issues ignored by Ayliffe and English, albeit raised in 1998 by V. A. Sharpe and A. I. Faden in "From Hospitalism to Nosocomial Infection Control," issues such as hospitals' wanting to keep infection data confidential amid the need for informed consent for patients.1 Despite this reviewer's wish list, this book serves as a significant stepping stone to an important topic that needs much more exploration in our present era of anticipated global epidemics, new accountability in health care, and growing public sensitivity to issues surrounding medical error. J. K. Crellin Memorial University Newfoundland Footnotes 1. V. A. Sharpe and A. I. Faden, "From Hospitalism to Nosocomial Infection Control," in Medical Harm: Historical, Conceptual and Ethical Dimensions of Iatrogenic Illness (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 153-74. Copyright © 2005 The Johns Hopkins University Press
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,003 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».