MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2761999483 · doi:10.1093/pch/9.suppl_a.27ab

28 Paediatric Emergency Department Staff Perceptions of Infection Control Measures against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

2004· article· en· W2761999483 on OpenAlexaff
MJ Parker, Ran D. Goldman

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInfection controlEmergency departmentRespiratory illnessRespiratory infectionOutbreakPneumoniaRespiratory systemIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) is a respiratory illness recognized on several continents. Our city is one of the first major centres affected by SARS prompting the government to mandate rigorous infection control measures. Health care workers' perceptions of the effectiveness and practice of infection control measures during an evolving outbreak are previously unreported. The purpose of this study was to determine Paediatric Emergency Department (PED) staff perceptions of the effectiveness and practice of infection control measures against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. All medical staff of the PED in a tertiary medical centre completed a written questionnaire over 7 days near the onset of the SARS outbreak. At the time of study, the effectiveness of infection control measures against this new pathogen was unknown. Level of concern regarding SARS and perceptions of the effectiveness and use of infection control measures were assessed on a 5-point scale. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS using Chi-square and ANOVA tests with significance at p<0.05. Response rate was 97% (116/120). Using isolation rooms (mean score 4.6/5), wearing a mask when examining patients (4.5/5) and handwashing (4.5/5) were considered most effective. Staff physicians reported more handwashing than nurses and trainees (4.9/5 vs 4.5/5 and 4.5/5, p<0.05) while other measures were reported equally. Those who considered SARS a high public health threat reported higher compliance with handwashing (4.8/5 vs 4.4/5), wearing a mask at all times in the PED (3.9/5 vs 3.2/5), and gloves (3.6/5 vs 2.9/5) (p<0.05), but not eye protection (3.4/5 vs 3.0/5), gown use (4.9/5 vs 4.7/5), or wearing a mask when examining patients (5.0/5 vs 4.8/5) (p=NS). Staff who considered combined infection control measures effective in protecting patients and health care workers did not report increased compliance (p=NS). PED staff perceived some infection control measures to be more effective than others in protecting against the spread of SARS, and perceptions differed among staff physicians, nurses, and trainees. Eye protection was perceived as only moderately effective in protecting against the spread of SARS and reported compliance was relatively poor among PED staff. Concern of SARS as a public health threat rather than perceived effectiveness of infection control measures appears to have a greater impact on compliance.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicEmergency and Acute Care Studies→French-language works237,207→