MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586600851 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofw172.1866

Survey of Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) Practices among Kidney and Liver Transplant Centers

2016· article· en· W2586600851 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elena Beam, Michael R. Keating, Raymund R. Razonable

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraditional Chinese Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInfection controlKidney transplantInternal medicineRenal transplantIntensive care medicineFamily medicineKidneyKidney transplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. There is a perceived lack of standardized practice on IPAC strategies among abdominal (kidney and liver) transplant (tx) centers. Methods. A survey was performed of members of the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice in 11/14 and 2/15 on IPAC policies after kidney and liver transplantation. Results. A total of 35 centers from the United States (27), Canada (2), Switzerland (2), South Korea (1), Turkey (1), India (1), and China (1) participated in this survey. 31 were liver tx centers and 35 were kidney tx centers. Only a minority use HEPA filtered rooms during hospitalizations (19.7 % at all times and 9.7 % immediate post-liver tx; 18.6 % at all times, and 8.6 % immediate post-kidney tx). Even fewer centers use positive pressure rooms (9.7% immediately post-tx and 3.2 % as clinically indicated in liver tx; 8.6% immediately post-tx and 5.7% as clinically indicated among kidney tx centers). Majority (94.3%) of centers do not have a policy beyond standard hand hygiene. One fifth of liver and kidney centers employ measures beyond standard room cleaning. Dedicated medical equipment such as stethoscope is used when caring for patients in 61.3% of liver tx and 62.5% of kidney tx centers, but only when there is a clinically indication. Only slightly over half (54.3%) do not allow live plants or flowers in tx units (54.3%). Likewise, the majority (74.3%) does not prohibit the use of personal belongings in patient rooms. However, majority does not allow animal companions (75%). Visitor age restriction, when enforced, varies from <5 years to <15 years. A third of kidney tx centers (34.3%) and liver tx centers (29%) recommend use of respiratory masks for patients leaving hospital rooms. Only 17.2% of kidney tx and 12.9% liver tx centers recommend respiratory mask use outside of the hospital; and duration of recommended mask use varied from immediately to 6 months post-tx. Conclusion. This survey highlights differences in IPAC strategies among kidney and liver tx centers. Evidence-based guidelines addressing these practices are needed in an effort to standardize the approach in the care of this vulnerable population. Disclosures. All authors: No reported disclosures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.300
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicTraditional Chinese Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207