Standard Precautions and Infection Control, Medical Students' Knowledge and Behavior at a Saudi University: The Need for Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No previous studies have reported the knowledge of Saudi medical students about Standard Precautions (SPs) and infection control. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to assess medical students' knowledge in clinical years at King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia about SPs' and to explore their attitudes toward the current curricular/training in providing them with effective knowledge and necessary skills with regard to SPs. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This cross sectional study targeted students in clinical stage at College of Medicine, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia. A pre-tested anonymous self administered data collection form was used. Inquires about students' characteristics, general concepts of infection control/SPs, hand hygiene, personal protective equipment, sharp injuries and disposal, and care of health providers were included. The main source of information for each domain was also inquired. The second part dedicated to explore the attitudes toward the curricular and teaching relevant to SPs. RESULTS: A total of 251 students were included. Knowledge scores in all domains were considerably low, 67 (26.7%) students scored ? 24 (out of 41points) which was considered as an acceptable level of knowledge, 22.2% in 4th year, 20.5% in 5th year and 36.8% in 6th year. Sharp injuries, personal protective equipment and health care of the providers showed the least knowledge scores. The main sources of knowledge were self learning, and informal bed side practices The majority of students' believed that the current teaching and training are insufficient in providing them with the necessary knowledge and skills regarding SPs. CONCLUSION: The overall knowledge scores for SPs were low especially in the domains of hand hygiene, sharp management, and personal protective equipment reflecting insufficient and ineffective instructions received by medical students through the current curriculum posing them vulnerable to health facilities related infections. Proper curricular reform and training are required to protect students and their patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".