Care of Children Isolated for Infection Control: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with community-acquired or nosocomial infections are often managed in a hospital with isolation precautions. Given the high prevalence and substantial inconvenience associated with implementation of isolation precautions in pediatric settings, we explored the impact of this intervention on the care provided to children and their families. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this work was to compare the quantity and quality of care received by isolated patients relative to nonisolated patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-five consecutive newly admitted inpatients in private rooms (24 isolated, 41 nonisolated) were recruited from the general pediatric service at the Hospital for Sick Children. Interactions between a medical team with patients and their families were observed. All of the participants were blinded to the study objectives. The medical team was observed during its morning rounds, and data were collected on the quantity and quality of care. Quantity of care was determined by the amount of time that the medical team spent interacting with the patient and parents and the number of organ systems examined by the attending physician during morning rounds. Quality of care was determined by using parental completion of the Pediatric Family Satisfaction Questionnaire. RESULTS: We found no significant difference in the average amount of time spent interacting with isolated compared with nonisolated patients (516 vs 480 seconds) or the number of organ systems examined in isolated compared with nonisolated patients (3 vs 4). Isolated and nonisolated groups gave high ratings to all of the items pertaining to the facility, doctors, and nurses. CONCLUSIONS: No large differences in quality or quantity of care were observed between isolated and nonisolated patients in the first 2 days of admission to a pediatric ward.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".