Focus Group Study of Hand Hygiene Practice among Healthcare Workers in a Teaching Hospital in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the behavioral determinants of hand hygiene in our hospital. DESIGN: Qualitative study based on 17 focus groups. SETTING: Mount Sinai Hospital, an acute care tertiary hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 153 healthcare workers (HCWs) representing all major patient care job categories. METHODS: Focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was independently conducted by 3 investigators. RESULTS: Participants reported that the realities of their workload (eg, urgent care and interruptions) make complete adherence to hand hygiene impossible. The guidelines were described as overly conservative, and participants expressed that their judgement is adequate to determine when to perform hand hygiene. Discussions revealed gaps in knowledge among participants; most participants expressed interest in more information and education. Participants reported self-protection as the primary reason for the performance of hand hygiene, and many admitted to prolonged glove use because it gave them a sense of protection. Limited access to hand hygiene products was a source of frustration, as was confusion related to hospital equipment as potential vehicles for transmission of infection. Participants said that they noticed other HCWs' adherence and reported that others HCWs' hygiene practices influenced their own attitudes and practices. In particular, HCWs perceive physicians as role models; physicians, however, do not see themselves as such. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm previous findings that hand hygiene is practiced for personal protection, that limited access to supplies is a barrier, and that role models and a sense of team effort encourage hand hygiene. Educating HCWs on how to manage workload with guideline adherence and addressing contaminated hospital equipment may improve compliance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".