Increasing uptake of hand hygiene education among health care workers via online learning at a Toronto teaching hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A formal marketing plan was devised to brand and promote the “quick and interactive” online learning module via: a) the hospital’s intranet home page b) e-mails tailored to staff, physicians and management, c) daily electronic newsletter d) pay stub reminders e) branded promotional T-shirts, f) instructional mini personal hand sanitizers as well as g) raffle prizes. The uptake of the course was tracked as each HCW was required to log in with their unique ID and password. Breakdown of various education session "modes" & uptake among HCWs Fifteen 30 minute class-room style presentations= approx. 68 HCW (over 4 months) Thirty 15 minute In-services at in-patient unit nursing stations= approx. 125 HCW (over 6 months) 10 minute Online learning module= 1,484 HCW (over 3 weeks) The uptake among HCWs for hand hygiene education at St. Michael's Hospital significantly increased with the introduction and roll-out of an online learning module over a significantly less amount of time. A formal evaluation is required in order to assess whether knowledge transfer of hand hygiene best practices occured.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".