Patterns of Handwashing Behavior and Visits to Patients on a General Medical Ward of Healthcare Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To obtain accurate data regarding the handwashing behavior and patterns of visits to patients by healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: All visits by HCWs to selected patient rooms were recorded for 3 days and 2 nights. Additionally, 5 nurses were observed for 1 day each and 2 nurses were observed for 1 night each. Nurses were observed for their entire shifts and all of their activities were recorded. SETTING: A general medical ward in a tertiary-care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience samples of HCWs and patients. RESULTS: Patients were visited every 25 minutes on average. Monitoring rooms and observing nurses resulted in similar rates of patient visits. The highest level of risk was contact with body fluids in 11% of visits and skin in 40% of visits. The overall rate of handwashing was 46%; however, the rate was higher for visits involving contact with body fluids (81%) and skin (61%). Nurses returned immediately to the same patient 45% of the time. The rate of handwashing was higher for the last of a series of visits to a patient's room (53% vs 30%, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses adjusted their handwashing rates in accordance with the risk level of each visit. Monitoring patient rooms and observing nurses yielded similar estimates of patient visits and proportions of visits involving contact with skin or body fluids. Education programs about hand hygiene may be more effective if patterns of care and levels of risk are incorporated into recommendations.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".