492. Canadian consensus of COVID-19 policy and management aspects
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background As evidence rapidly changes, a need for consensus in hospital policy and management aspects of COVID-19 patient care are needed. This study describes areas where consensus exists and is needed in infection control, and occupational health policy. Methods An online survey was sent to the membership of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease (n~700). The survey included questions about COVID-19 patient and outbreak management, personal protective equipment (PPE), and occupational health considerations. Results Our preliminary results (n=24) were from infectious disease MD/NP or infection control medical directors. All respondents agreed treatment of COVID-19 patients should only occur in the context of a clinical trial. Of 18 centers with neonatal populations, the majority (64.2%) did not have any neonatal specific treatment guidelines. Well-babies born to COVID-19 positive moms, are all being tested (10 of 10 respondents). Variation in practice on when to remove a patient from additional precautions and potential aerosol generating medical procedures (Table 1, 2). Universal masking is in place for all clinical staff (100%), non-clinical staff (70.8%), essential visitors or patient caregivers (70.8%), and universal eye protection is in place for clinical staff (93.3%), but there was a lack of consensus in PPE conservation strategies (Table 3). Most staff do not use neck PPE (68.2%), however there was comments of it being requested by anesthesiologists at 2 sites (Table 2). Healthcare trainees or workers in these groups were restricted from caring for COVID-19 patients; Age >65 years (54.5%) and immunocompromised status (54.5%). COVID-19 positive staff can return to work 14 days after symptom onset (84.2%). Table 1. Areas of COVID-19 management lacking consensus. Not all respondents answered every question. The percentage in brackets was calculated with the number of respondents per question as the denominator. Table 2. Procedures considered as aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMPs). Respondents (n=24) were allowed to select more than one option. Table 3. Personal protective equipment (PPE) conservation strategies (n=24). Not all respondents answered every question. The percentage in brackets was calculated with the number of respondents per question as the denominator. NA corresponds to the question not asked in the survey. Conclusion Across Canada, while there are areas of consensus in outbreak definitions, universal masking of clinical staff. There is significant variation in practice with respect to discontinuing additional precautions or outbreak measures, asymptomatic testing, AGMP definitions, PPE conservation strategies including reprocessing. As evidence evolves, national infection control guidelines will be important to improve standardization of practice and optimize patient care and staff safety. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures
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 | 0,056 | 0,076 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,011 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,002 |
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 ».