Survey of nasopharyngoscope decontamination methods in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: nasopharyngoscopes are essential tools in modern otolaryngology practice. Owing to their frequent and diverse use, it is important to ensure that they can be efficiently and thoroughly cleaned. To date, there are no official national guidelines provided by the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (CSOHNS) for decontamination of nasopharyngoscopes. OBJECTIVE: to compare flexible nasopharyngoscope decontamination practices across Canada. METHODS: a questionnaire regarding nasopharyngoscope cleaning procedures was distributed online to all otolaryngologists registered with the CSOHNS. The survey was anonymous. Topics addressed province, practice type, maintenance, operations, ventilation, and process development. RESULTS: thirty-five percent of the 505 Canadian otolaryngologists contacted participated in the survey. Automated sterilization of nasopharyngoscopes is employed by 16% of participants, of which the majority of this use is in hospital settings. Over 61.3% of participants use a multistep decontaminating soak for cleaning. Decontamination procedures were created within the department in 59% of cases, and over 28.3% of participants are unsure as to whether their procedures adhere to infectious disease and industry standards. CONCLUSION: various procedures are employed throughout Canada owing to a lack of standardization. Survey responses indicate that Canadian otolaryngologists would appreciate a national standard for the cleaning of flexible nasopharyngoscopes, particularly for nonhospital practices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".