Survet of infection control measures and design of emergeny rooms in Quebec, Canada: an overview of the actual situation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An electronic survey covering design, hand hygiene, IC measures and housekeeping of ER was done using Survey Monkey software. The questionnaire was sent in September 2010 to IC practitioners of Quebec acute-care settings with >1000 admissions/year. Data were analyzed with Epi-Info 3.5.2. The survey was completed by 63/89 (71%) hospitals. ER had a mean of 22 beds (range: 5-52), including 30,3% of single rooms. Airborne isolation rooms (AIR) were present in 87% of ER (range: 0-8 AIR). The ratio of ER that had a proportion of toilet/bed between 0 to 40% was 85%. Hand hygiene stations were located next to 78,5% of beds. Audits on hand hygiene compliance were performed in 35/63 (55,5%) of ER within the past two years. The compliance rate was <50% in 90,6% of ER. A designated area in the waiting room to cohort patients presenting with infectious diseases symptoms was present in 87,1% ER. Surveillance of MRSA and VRE were done in 90,4% of ER. An IC committee specific to ER was implemented in only 4,8% of ER. Dedicated housekeeping personnel were present in 76,2% of ER. In Québec’s ER, only 30% of beds were designed as single rooms and compliance to hand hygiene was low. More evidence-based data and guidelines are needed on IC in ER.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".