Restrictive Visitor Policies: Feedback from Healthcare Workers, Patients and Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the hospital-based transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in Ontario, acute care hospitals severely restricted visitor access. Now that the SARS outbreak is under control, hospitals struggle with the balance between adhering to patient- and family-centred care models, and addressing the future threat of infectious diseases. To evaluate the effect of visitor restrictions and to guide future visitation policies, the Ottawa Hospital conducted a preliminary survey of patients, next of kin, staff, physicians and volunteers. Ninety percent of staff surveyed supported some form of visitor restrictions, while 71% indicated that they felt comfortable asking visitors to leave if they had exceeded current restrictions. The majority of patients (80%) and next of kin (76%) were at least moderately satisfied with current restricted limiting hours. A disproportionate number of positive comments on current visiting restrictions were received from both patients and staff. In the absence of evidence on which to base future visitor policy development, objective input from healthcare workers, patients and families is invaluable.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".