Paediatric emergency department staff perceptions of infection control measures against severe acute respiratory syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine paediatric emergency department (ED) staff perceptions of the effectiveness and practice of infection control measures against a novel virulent pathogen. METHODS: All medical staff of the paediatric ED in a tertiary medical centre completed a written questionnaire near the onset of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak. Level of concern regarding SARS, and perceptions of effectiveness and use of infection control measures were assessed on a 5 point scale. Statistical analysis was performed using chi2 test and one way analysis of variance with significance at p<0.05. RESULTS: Response rate was 97% (116/120). All scores were given out of 5 possible points. Using isolation rooms (mean score 4.6), wearing a mask when examining patients (4.5), and handwashing (4.5) were considered most effective. Staff physicians reported handwashing more than nurses and trainees (4.9 v 4.5 and 4.5, respectively; p<0.05) while other measures were reported equally. Respondents considering SARS a high public health threat reported higher compliance with handwashing (4.8 v 4.4), always wearing a mask (3.9 vs 3.2) and gloves (3.6 v 2.9) in the ED (p<0.05), but not eye protection (3.4 v 3.0), gown use (4.9 v 4.7), or wearing a mask when examining patients (5.0 v 4.8). Staff who considered combined infection control measures effective in protecting patients and healthcare workers did not report increased compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Eye protection was perceived as only moderately effective in protecting against the spread of SARS, and reported compliance was relatively poor among ED staff. Concern of SARS as a public health threat rather than perceived effectiveness of infection control measures appears to have a greater impact on compliance.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".