Poster 347 Hand Hygiene in the Rehabilitation Inpatient: Our Staff's Role
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S. Rajasekaran, No Disclosures. To assess what interventions would improve hand hygiene in rehabilitation inpatients. Prospective, unblinded, controlled study. Inpatient rehabilitation unit lunchroom. Inpatients on a Rehabilitation Ward (stroke, spunal cord injury and brain injury). Patients were observed during lunchtime. In week 1, no inteventions were used (preexisting gel dispenser at both entrances). In week 2, gel dispensers were placed on lunch tables. In week 3, sign posts were also placed on lunch tables. In week 4, staff also cued the patients prior to handing them lunch trays. Frequency of gel dispenser use prior to meals. In week 1, 0% (0/18) patients cleansed their hands. In the ensuing weeks, the rates were as follows: week 2, 5% (1/22); week 3, 0% (0/22); week 4, 94% (17/18). We assumed hand-cleansing observations were independent after each intervention and used the Fisher's exact test to show a significant difference (P<.001) in the proportion of patients who washed their hands in week 4. Accessibility and visual cuing were not effective on their own or in combination, but when staff cuing was also added patient compliance with hand hygiene significantly improved. All patients on our rehabilitation ward are now cued to wash their hands prior to receiving their lunch trays (gel dispensers on all tables).
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.130 | 0.019 |
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".