MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981803655 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1063

1200. Parent Perspectives on Infection Prevention and Control in the NICU

2019· article· en· W2981803655 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle Science, Sarah Khan, Callum Arnold, Pablo J. Sánchez, Kyong‐Soon Lee, Fabiana Bacchini, Judith Hawes, Dominik Mertz, Salhab el Helou, David Kaufman

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPediatric health and respiratory diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInfection controlNeonatal intensive care unitPsychological interventionHygieneNecrotizing enterocolitisIntensive careHealth carePediatricsIntensive care medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are at high risk for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) due to their immature immune systems and need for invasive devices. Parents have frequent contact with their infants and present an opportunity for prevention practices. The objective of this study was to evaluate parental opinions related to infection prevention and control (IPAC) in the NICU. Methods An online survey was sent to a network of 2,000 parents from the Canadian Premature Babies Foundation. The survey included questions about patient-centered outcomes, IPAC practices experienced during their infants’ NICU admission, and specifically, opinions regarding nonsterile glove use by both healthcare workers (HCWs) and parents. Results A total of 72 parents responded to the survey. The majority were parents of infants born at less than 37 weeks (94%) and had been admitted to an NICU after 2010 (89%). When asked about preventing infections in the NICU, 82% of parents indicated they had been given information on how the NICU prevents infection and 96% had been told how they can prevent infection in their infant (Table 1). The most common information was related to hand hygiene (96%) and what to do if they were unwell (89%). Opportunities for improvement included being bare below the elbow, nail care, and feeding human milk. With respect to IPAC outcomes of interest, 96% agreed that it was important to study interventions to reduce bloodstream infections (BSIs). Other outcomes of interest (Table 2) included necrotizing enterocolitis (72%), antibiotic-resistant organism acquisition (69%), and length of stay (67%). With respect to glove use, 89% of parents felt that it was acceptable for HCWs to wear gloves when caring for their infant. Only 37% of parents indicated that they would want to wear gloves if HCWs were wearing gloves, but 47% would consider wearing gloves if there was evidence that it reduced infection in their infant. Conclusion Reducing infections, specifically BSIs, in infants admitted to the NICU is an outcome of interest for parents. Nonsterile gloving by HCWs is considered an acceptable strategy by parents to reduce infections. Missed opportunities exist for the education of parents in the NICU on IPAC practices. 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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.374 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Forum Infectious DiseasesSame topicPediatric health and respiratory diseasesFrench-language works237,207