Hand washing compliance among Healthcare staff in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of a Multispecialty Hospital of North India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Hand hygiene is the single most important strategy to prevent HAIs. The present cross sectional study was conducted in ICUs to provide insight into the prevailing practices of hand-hygiene. Results: During two week analysis, 2400 hand washing opportunities were observed. Hand washing adherence rate was 86.0%, with highest compliance among nurses (94.0%). Compliance was (95.0%) after patient contact than 72.5% before contact. In 96.04% opportunities alcohol rub was used for hand washing. More than 90.0% staff was aware about facts viz. diseases prevented by hand washing (96.2%), ideal duration of hand washing (92.6%), reduction of HAI with hand washing (98.0%) etc. Reasons for non-adherence emerged as work pressure (94.2%) and unavailability of materials (82.4%). Conclusion The level of compliance (86%) is below the need to be there in ICU otherwise. Easy access to hand-rub solutions, adherence measurement and institutional commitment might contribute to staff sensitivity to hand hygiene practices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".