Survey of Infection Control Practices in Hemodialysis Units: Preventing Vascular Access–Associated Bloodstream Infections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite surveillance, the Quebec Healthcare-Associated Infections Surveillance Program saw no improvement in vascular access-associated bloodstream infections in hemodialysis (HD). We aimed to determine the infection control measures recommended and implemented in Quebec's HD units, compliance of local protocols to infection control practice guidelines, and reasons behind the low prevalence of arteriovenous fistulas. METHODS: An online survey was elaborated on the basis of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative guidelines. The questionnaire was validated (construct, content, face validity, and reliability) and sent to all HD units in Quebec (n = 40). Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, linear regression, and Poisson regression. RESULTS: Thirty-seven (93%) of 40 HD units participated. Thirty (94%) of the 32 centers where central catheters are inserted have written insertion protocols. Compliance with practice guidelines is good, except for full-body draping during catheter insertion (79%) and ointment use at insertion site (3%). Prevention measures for catheter maintenance are in accordance with guidelines, except for skin disinfection with at least 0.5% chlorhexidine and 70% alcohol (67% compliance) and regular antiseptic ointment use at the insertion site (3%). Before fistula cannulation, skin preparation is suboptimal; forearm hygiene is performed in only 61% of cases. Several factors explain the low rate of fistulas, including patient preference (69%) and lack of surgical resources (39%; P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in standardization of care according to practice guidelines is necessary. Fistula rate could be increased by improving access to surgical resources and patient education. Strategies are now being elaborated to address these findings.
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 | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".