Infection prevention and control learning preferences of nurses sampled at a teaching hospital.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pilot study was conducted within the medical-surgical intensive care unit (MSICU) of the Toronto General Hospital site of the University Health Network during the winter/spring (March-June) of 1999 to examine nurses' learning preferences relevant to infection prevention and control (IPAC). The majority of the nurses sampled indicated a preference for face-to-face infection prevention and control education (seminars). Such seminars were preferred on an annual basis by most respondents. Common preferences for paper-based learning formats were observed to be portable flash cards, packages with text and pictures and reference manuals. Such paper-based modalities could be considered in concert with infection control seminars; possibly to serve as easily accessible reminders within hospital units. Although not observed in this study, exploring differences in learning preferences across various demographic characteristics of nurses (e.g., years of experience) could be valuable. It is important to assess the specific IPAC learning needs of nurses before designing educational interventions. Assessing the effectiveness of learning modalities in improving infection control practices is advised. The practicality of nurse participation in various educational initiatives also must be considered, as barriers to nurse participation in continuing education have been noted. Furthermore, organizational commitment to infection prevention/safety should be reinforced through future training opportunities for health care workers (HCWs). Challenges with the application of new technology to educational modalities have been cited, which bears relevance to these findings. These observations are presented in order to inform infection control training of nurses in the post-SARS milieu of health care provision in Canada.
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) | 0.000 | 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".