Ongoing Use of Conventional Devices and Safety Device Activation Rates in Hospitals in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed voluntary compliance with the use of sharp safety devices in lieu of conventional ones and the activation status of these safety devices: VanishPoint syringes, Terumo Surshield butterflies, and Insyte Autoguard IV catheters. Sharps disposal containers from various wards in three private, not-for profit, university-affiliated Ontario hospitals were audited during 9 days in August 2007. In the 149 audited sharps containers, 55% of all syringes found were conventional compared with 45% that were safety syringes. In the three hospitals, the percentages of conventional (non-safety) vs. safety syringes found in used sharps containers were as follows, respectively: (i) 72% conventional and 28% safety, (ii) 55% conventional and 45% safety, and (iii) 65% conventional and 35% safety. In addition, it was found that 77% of 2131 Terumo butterflies, 97% of 1117 Insyte Autoguard IV catheters, and 87% of 4897 VanishPoint syringes in the containers had been activated. This study, carried out approximately 1 year before it was legally required to use safety instead of sharp conventional devices, found that most devices in use were conventional ones. It was also found that only the activation rate for the safety IV device was acceptable. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplemental resource: a file containing tables outlining safety syringes and conventional syringes by ward and hospital and hospital-wide and ward activation rates by category of device.]
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".