MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153547086 · doi:10.1111/acem.12754

Hand Hygiene Compliance in an Emergency Department: The Effect of Crowding

2015· article· en· W2153547086 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHygieneCrowdingEmergency departmentMultivariate analysisHealth careCompliance (psychology)Emergency medicineMedical emergencyFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) crowding results from the need to see high volumes of patients of variable acuity within a limited physical space. ED crowding has been associated with poor patient outcomes and increased mortality. The authors evaluated whether ED crowding is also associated with reduced hand hygiene compliance among health care workers. METHODS: A trained observer measured hand hygiene compliance using standardized definitions for 22 months in the 40-bed ED of a 475-bed academic hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. ED crowding measures, including mean daily patient volumes, time to initial physician assessment, and daily nursing hours, were obtained from hospital administrative and human resource databases. Known predictors of hand hygiene compliance, including the indication for hand hygiene and the health care workers' professions, were also measured. Hand hygiene data, measured during 20-minute observation sessions, were linked to aggregate daily results for each crowding metric. Crowding metrics and known predictors of hand hygiene compliance were then included in a multivariate model if associated with hand hygiene compliance at a p-value of <0.20. RESULTS: Hand hygiene compliance was 29% (325 of 1,116 opportunities). Alcohol-based hand rinse was used 66% of the time. Nurses accounted for 68% of hand hygiene opportunities and physicians for 18%, with the remaining 14% attributed to nonphysician, nonnurse health care workers. The most common indications for hand hygiene were hand hygiene prior to (35%) and hand hygiene following (52%) contact with the patient or his or her environment. In multivariate analysis, time to physician assessment > 1.5 hours was associated with lower compliance (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.89). Additionally, compliance was lower for nonnurse, nonphysician health care workers (OR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.79) and higher for hand hygiene performed after contact with the patients or his/her environment, compared to hand hygiene performed before contact with the patient or his/her environment (OR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.5 to 2.7). Daily patient volumes and nursing hours were not associated with hand hygiene compliance. CONCLUSIONS: ED hand hygiene compliance was low. Increased time to physician assessment was associated with reduced compliance, suggesting an association between crowding and compliance. Strategies that minimize ED crowding may improve ED hand hygiene 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it