Skin disinfection methods: prospective evaluation and postimplementation results
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".