The Effect of Infection Prevention and Control Education on Patient and Family Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are a significant healthcare burden in Canada. Hand hygiene (HH) is an effective and cost efficient method to prevent HAI. Studies have shown that education increases HH compliance amongst HCW; however, less research has been conducted on its impact on patients and families. This study evaluated an education program in a pediatric hospital and its impact on the short-term knowledge of patients/family members regarding infection prevention strategies including HH. The aim of this study was to evaluate any change in knowledge of HH and general infection prevention awareness after a personal educational presentation was provided to the patient and family. Methods. Admitted patients and their families at the Alberta Children's Hospital were invited to participate from June to August 2015. Patients over nine years of age or a family member of patients under the age of nine years were included in the study. Excluded were non-English speaking individuals and those admitted to critical care and mental health units. A volunteer administered a standard questionnaire and observed HH before and after providing a personal educational presentation and demonstration to evaluate change in knowledge and HH performance. Participants were reassessed three days after the initial education session. Results. One hundred fifty-four participants (68 patients, 86 family members) enrolled in the study, with 60 available for follow-up. The mean knowledge score increased by 55.82% (P < 0.001) immediately after education and increased by 35.46% (P < 0.001) from the pretest to the three-day follow-up. The mean HH performance score increased by 67.10% (P < 0.001) immediately after and increased by 46.87% (P < 0.001) from pretest to follow-up. Conclusion. Patient and family centered education sessions were effective in improving short-term HH knowledge in a pediatric setting. Further strategies should be developed to improve long-term knowledge retention in this population which may help reduce the incidence of HAI. 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".