Assessing the quality of Hand Hygiene data produced by Alberta Health Services using a time-in-motion study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Alberta Health Services (AHS) measures hand hygiene compliance through direct observations performed by trained site-based reviewers (SBRs) and facilitated by the Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) program. Within AHS there are >100 acute care facilities, ranging in bed size from four beds to more than 1,000, with catchment populations ranging from one million. A time-in-motion study using trained AHS IPC staff was proposed to validate the completeness and accuracy of data being collected by the SBRs. Methods: The AHS IPC staff performed direct observations at pre-selected facilities across all five zones and four different unit types (emergency, medical, surgical, and intensive care) for four 30-minute periods during weekdays between June and September 2023. An iPad app was used to capture results from all four moments of hand hygiene. The reviewer indicated the day and time of the review and captured as many representative hand hygiene moments and healthcare providers as possible. The distributions of the four moments of hand hygiene, healthcare provider group and overall compliance were compared at the unit type and facility level (tertiary, large urban, regional, pediatric, and small sites) between this time-in-motion study and SBR data collected June-September 2023. Results: The study collected 175 reviews and 4,683 observations from 14 facilities and 48 units. Between June and September 2023, SBRs collected 2,625 reviews and 61,506 observations from these same facility and unit types. Across all facility and unit types, the distribution of the four moments was similar between the study and SBRs. Similar proportions of healthcare providers were also observed. However, the overall hand hygiene compliance collected in the study was approximately 10% lower across all unit types as compared to that collected by the SBRs (study: 63%-84%; SBRs: 75%-92%). Conclusions: In public health surveillance, completeness and accuracy are two characteristics of high-quality data. A time-in-motion study identified that the hand hygiene observations collected by SBRs were complete, as the range of healthcare providers observed, and the distribution of their moments, mirrored that collected in the study. However, the SBRs reported higher compliance than the study participants and the true hand hygiene compliance is likely lower than what is currently being reported. Since this difference was seen consistently across all unit and facility types, trending data over time should still identify areas in need of improvement and may help to suggest causes of the over-reporting.
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 | 0,018 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».