Mastery of the World Health Organization’s techniques of handwashing by the nursing students at the University of Namibia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hand hygiene practice is essential to prevent cross infection during health care delivery. Poor hand hygiene by health care providers can be a source of hospital acquired infections among patients. In their first year of studies, nursing students are taught the skills of correct hand washing according to the World Health Organization (WHO)’s techniques to prevent cross infection. Hence, they are expected to demonstrate the mastery of hand hygiene practice and to apply the skills in clinical practice when providing care to patients. A quantitative, cross sectional descriptive study assessed the practice of hand hygiene by the second year nursing students at the University of Namibia (UNAM), main campus during their placement in clinical practice. The primary quantitative data was gathered through a structured questionnaire with the sections on the students’ demographic and the practice of hand washing according to the WHO set standards. The findings revealed that in exemption to the few (33%), the majority (67%) of the participants have low compliance with hand hygiene practice. In conclusion, recommendations were made with regard to teaching, environmental factors, processes of caring and attitudes of health care staff which may influence the practice of hand hygiene by the nursing students.
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".