Skin disinfection methods: prospective evaluation and postimplementation results
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Optimal skin disinfection ensures blood safety. In this study, efficacies of the two-step skin disinfection methods used at Canadian Blood Services (CBS) and two one-step methods produced by different manufacturers were compared. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In each of the three phases of the study, two methods were compared by disinfection of the antecubital fossae of study subjects. The two-step methods were compared in Phase I: Method A (isopropyl alcohol scrub and iodine tincture ampule) and Method B (isopropyl alcohol and chlorhexidine scrub and isopropyl alcohol and chlorhexidine ampule). In Phases II and III, Method B was compared to two different one-step swab sticks containing isopropyl alcohol and chlorhexidine (Methods C and D). Contact plates were applied on each of the subjects before and after disinfection and incubated at 37 degrees C for 24 hours followed by colony counting. RESULTS: In 99% of the subjects, colonies per plate were reduced from approximately 60 to less than 10 after disinfection using any method. Method B was superior to Method A (p < 0.05) but was not significantly different from Methods C and D. Method D was implemented for skin disinfection at CBS with no significant effects on blood product contamination. Skin reactions increased from approximately 0.02% to approximately 0.62% after implementation, which were subsequently reduced to approximately 0.04%. CONCLUSION: In this study, isopropyl alcohol and chlorhexidine disinfectants were more efficacious than isopropyl alcohol and iodine. There was no difference in efficacy between one-step and two-step procedures or between methods of application. A one-step chlorhexidine and isopropyl alcohol kit has been successfully implemented at CBS.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it