MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2443549234

Beat Those Bugs! Implementing contact precautions in community dialysis units for closer-to-home care.

2010· article· en· W2443549234 on OpenAlexaff
Jim Curtin, Carole Dalziel

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsProvidence Health Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInfection controlDialysisHealth careMedical emergencyNursingIntensive care medicineSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"Beat Those Bugs!" was the call to action for the Providence Health Care Renal and Infection Prevention and Control programs to provide closer-to-home care in community dialysis units, for hemodialysis patients positive for the antibiotic-resistant organisms, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus. The initiative assessed barriers and facilitators to: implementing Contact Precautions; developing practice standards for nurses and renal technicians to enact Contact Precautions care; providing staff and patient education essential to implementing these standards; and, securing environmental and equipment supports required for Contact Precautions care. Through the "Beat Those Bugs!" initiative, all six Providence Health Care Community Dialysis Units have the capacity to provide Standard/ Routine as well as Contact Precautions care enabling patients to receive closer-to-home care in their home communities regardless of their antibiotic-resistant microorganism status. Program evaluation (based on annual screening) demonstrates that the "Beat Those Bugs!" program is an effective model for safe, evidence-based and ethical care in the hemodialysis setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207