A multifaceted approach to a successful and sustainable hand hygiene campaign in a large tertiary academic medical centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The comprehensive program has 2 phases: setup and maintenance. The setup phase includes obtaining strong commitment from hospital leadership, setting up alcohol-based hand rub at point of care, providing intensive education sessions to all areas of the hospital, establishing an audit and feedback process, and creating a poster campaign. The maintenance phase includes ongoing audit and feedback, analysis of data to direct program improvement and refreshing of promotional efforts. HH audits of HCW-patient interactions were performed by trained auditors in all inpatient and long term care areas and higher risk out-patient areas using a standardized, validated audit tool. Before the campaign, the overall hospital average HH compliance was 43%. Immediately after the pilot setup phase, HH compliance rapidly and significantly improved to 62%. After the full setup phase had been implemented, the HH increased to 72%. In the maintenance phase, the HH compliance has continued to increase to 81% over the subsequent 2 years. This improvement is statistically significant. A multifaceted campaign is effective in rapidly improving and sustaining HH compliance at a large tertiary academic hospital.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".