MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613969664 · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2017.05.007

Implementation of quality management for clinical bacteriology in low-resource settings

2017· review· en· W2613969664 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Microbiology and Infection · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationHealth careMedicineQuality management systemQuality assuranceBacteriologyQuality managementManagement systemOperations managementMedical educationEngineeringPolitical sciencePathologyExternal quality assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The declining trend of malaria and the recent prioritization of containment of antimicrobial resistance have created a momentum to implement clinical bacteriology in low-resource settings. Successful implementation relies on guidance by a quality management system (QMS). Over the past decade international initiatives were launched towards implementation of QMS in HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. AIMS: To describe the progress towards accreditation of medical laboratories and to identify the challenges and best practices for implementation of QMS in clinical bacteriology in low-resource settings. SOURCES: Published literature, online reports and websites related to the implementation of laboratory QMS, accreditation of medical laboratories and initiatives for containment of antimicrobial resistance. CONTENT: Apart from the limitations of infrastructure, equipment, consumables and staff, QMS are challenged with the complexity of clinical bacteriology and the healthcare context in low-resource settings (small-scale laboratories, attitudes and perception of staff, absence of laboratory information systems). Likewise, most international initiatives addressing laboratory health strengthening have focused on public health and outbreak management rather than on hospital based patient care. Best practices to implement quality-assured clinical bacteriology in low-resource settings include alignment with national regulations and public health reference laboratories, participating in external quality assurance programmes, support from the hospital's management, starting with attainable projects, conducting error review and daily bench-side supervision, looking for locally adapted solutions, stimulating ownership and extending existing training programmes to clinical bacteriology. IMPLICATIONS: The implementation of QMS in clinical bacteriology in hospital settings will ultimately boost a culture of quality to all sectors of healthcare in low-resource settings.

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.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.261
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.323 · 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