Collaborative Approach to Developing Infection Prevention Control Recommendations at a Tertiary-Care Pediatric Hospital
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Stollery Children’s Hospital (SCH) is a tertiary-care pediatric hospital with a complex infrastructure: 3 NICUs located at 3 different hospitals, and all of the pediatric inpatient beds, PICU, PCICU, and a medical-surgical NICU at the main SCH site shared buildings with an academic adult hospital. We describe a collaborative process used to develop standardized SCH Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) recommendations. Methods: The SCH IPC formed a working group with Patient and Family-Centered Care (PFCC) and family representatives in 2014 to enhance the engagement of families in regards to IPC issues and initiatives. The working group identified inconsistent messages provided to families when a child was admitted as a patient requiring additional precautions (PRAP). The working group then developed a framework of key questions to be answered for family care providers of PRAP. The working group held several consultative meetings with frontline staff followed by a review of published guidelines and consultations with other pediatric hospitals about contentious issues. A consensus meeting with all key stakeholders was held to finalize IPC recommendations. Results: The key contentious issues included (1) whether personal protective equipment is required for family care providers who stay overnight with PRAP and (2) whether family care providers of PRAP are allowed to access nutrition centers on clinical units and family lounges in PCICU–PICU–NICU that were stocked with free hot meals for the families. No directly applicable recommendation was available IPC guidelines on these issues. Discussions of these topics were directed by PFCC at family councils of various clinical programs with efforts to seek opinions from more family representatives. Expert opinions and current practice were also obtained from Canadian hospitals through emails and from US hospitals through SHEA Open Forum by ICP. A final consensus meeting revisiting all available information was held, and a new Stollery IPC guideline was created with families as partners sharing the IPC vision of minimizing transmission risk at SCH. Conclusions: A consultative engagement and consensus process was successful in the development of IPC recommendations for family care providers for PRAP for implementation at a tertiary-care pediatric hospital with a complex infrastructure. The next step is to develop family-friendly educational and resource materials with clear and concise messages. Funding: None Disclosures: None
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».