Are nurses protected? Observing the risk of skin contamination when donning and doffing personal protective equipment, using a Canadian protocol.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine whether the Public Services Health and Safety Association’s \ndonning and doffing protocol for Ebola are effective in the prevention of skin and clothing \ncontamination. Ten third-year nursing students performed a donning and doffing simulation, \nwhich included donning personal protective equipment (PPE), being sprayed with GloGerm, \nperforming eight simulated movements, and doffing PPE. Fluorescent stains were observed \nusing an ultraviolet scan and were documented by their location and size. Four participants (N=4) \nexperienced at least one contamination event following the doffing of PPE. Contaminations were \nobserved on: the left dorsal lower leg (41.3mm; 64.0mm); the right dorsal lower leg (77.9mm); the \nleft plantar (9.5mm); the left index finger (2.8mm); the right middle finger (1.6mm); the left scapula \n(38.1mm); and the right buttock (57.2mm). Areas of difficulty in the protocol included donning and \ndoffing: the gown, N95 respirator, and the outer footwear. Failures with the equipment, including \nbreaches and punctures, also contributed to the documented contamination. Near-miss incidents were \nobserved in nine of the twenty-four steps in the protocols and occurred a total of twenty times. \nRevisions to the protocols were completed and included additional information for the following \nprotocol steps: hang hygiene, N95 respirator, gown, outer footwear, verification process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".