Factors Associated With Critical-Care Healthcare Workers' Adherence to Recommended Barrier Precautions During the Toronto Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Outbreak
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess factors associated with adherence to recommended barrier precautions among healthcare workers (HCWs) providing care to critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). SETTING: Fifteen acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: All patients with SARS who required intubation during the Toronto SARS outbreak in 2003. PARTICIPANTS: HCWs who provided care to or entered the room of a SARS patient during the period from 24 hours before intubation until 4 hours after intubation. METHODS: Standardized interviews were conducted with eligible HCWs to assess their interactions with the SARS patient, their use of barrier precautions, their practices for removing personal protective equipment, and the infection control training they received. RESULTS: Of 879 eligible HCWs, 795 (90%) participated. In multivariate analysis, the following predictors of consistent adherence to recommended barrier precautions were identified: recognition of the patient as a SARS case (odds ratio [OR], 2.5 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.5-4.5); recent infection control training (OR for interactive training, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.7-4.4]; OR for passive training, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0-3.0]), and working in a SARS unit (OR, 4.0 [95% CI, 1.8-8.9]) or intensive care unit (OR, 4.3 [95% CI, 2.0-9.0]). Two factors were associated with significantly lower rates of consistent adherence: the provision of care for patients with higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores (OR for score APACHE II of 20 or greater, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.28-0.68]) and work on shifts that required more frequent room entry (OR for 6 or more entries per shift, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.32-0.86]). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant deficits in knowledge about self-protection that were partially corrected by education programs during the SARS outbreak. HCWs' adherence to self-protection guidelines was most closely associated with whether they provided care to patients who had received a definite diagnosis of SARS.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".