Access to hand hygiene in eastern Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hand hygiene compliance improves when alcohol-based hand products (ABHP) are provided at the point-of-care (POC). However, it is not known how many facilities have the infrastructure available to provide easy access to ABHP currently. OBJECTIVES: To describe the extent to which facilities in the Champlain Infection Control Network (CICN) provide POC access to ABHP. METHODS: A survey was conducted of all healthcare facilities in the CICN in October 2007. Sites were asked to complete a one-page questionnaire regarding number and location of ABHP dispensers on one ward in their facilities. The primary outcome measures included: the proportion of facilities providing any POC access to ABHP and the proportion of ABHP dispensers that were at POC, hallways and other areas. RESULTS: A total of 18 of 59 (31%) long-term care facilities (LTCF) and 14 of 18 (78%) acute-care facilities (ACF) participated in the survey. Intensive care units (ICUs) were present in seven (50%) of the ACF. POC access to ABHP was provided in 44% of LTCF, 50% of ACF and 71% of ICUs surveyed. In LTCF 20% of ABHP dispensers were at the POC compared to 23% in ACF and 42% in ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Although ABHP is available in these settings, most dispensers are not provided at the POC. Hospitals and LTCF need to increase the number of ABHP dispensers available, with a particular emphasis on placing them at the POC in accordance with provincial guidelines.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".