Evalutation of hand hygiene compliance in medical educational videos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational study of clinical videos published in the New England Journal of Medicine between Apr. 2006 and Dec. 2010 to measure reference to HH as recommended by WHO guidelines. An opportunity was defined as a need to perform HH directly related to the procedure. 29 videos (total running time, 3h42min) depicting 17 sterile, 11 aseptic, and 5 clinical procedures were reviewed. Sixty-six opportunities to explicitly mention the need to perform HH were recorded. Indication to perform HH was properly mentioned 24% (16/66) of time. Proper reference to HH was higher before aseptic procedures (9/14 opportunities [64%]) and before performing a sterile task (7/16 opportunities [43%]). However, explicit indication to perform HH before touching a patient, after body fluid exposure and after touching a patient were never mentioned. Hand washing was more frequently mentioned than hand rubbing with an alcohol-based solution (ratio, 6:1). Additional information regarding HH was present in 3/29 (10%) of written supplements. Respect of guidelines regarding jewellery was high (28/29 videos). Gloves were uniformly used whenever indicated. However, 10 of the 29 videos (34%) depicted ≥1 sequence in which gloves were used despite a clear need to do so. There is a need to adequately portray proper hand hygiene and glove use in teaching material aimed at physicians.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".