MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981912909 · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofz360.1062

1199. Provider Perspectives on Nonsterile Glove Use in the NICU

2019· article· en· W2981912909 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Khan, Michelle Science, Callum Arnold, Judith Hawes, Kyong‐Soon Lee, Salhab el Helou, Pablo J. Sánchez, Dominik Mertz, David Kaufman

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Forum Infectious Diseases · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal and Maternal Infections
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHygieneInfection controlNeonatal intensive care unitPediatricsIntensive careEmergency medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Late-onset infection is a serious cause of mortality and long-term morbidity in NICU patients. Healthcare worker hands are the most common vehicle for transmission of pathogenic organisms to neonates. Studies have suggested a reduction in infections in neonatal and pediatric patients cared for with universal nonsterile glove use. Methods We developed an online survey (https://fhspeds.mcmaster.ca/pedsCapOne/surveys/?s=9RDX7EHT79) for clinicians to understand the current glove use and hand hygiene practices in NICUs in North America. The survey was sent to neonatologists and Pediatric Infectious Disease Specialists via the AAP Neonatal-Perinatal Section listserv, SHEA and the Canadian Neonatal Network. Results Of 336 responses; the majority were from physicians at level 3 to 4 NICUs (97%), and from the United States (96.1%). Beyond sterile procedures, sterile gloves were used for central line dressing changes (88.4%), contact with central nervous system shunts (61.0%), and direct contact with central lines (57.4%). Nonsterile gloves were used most commonly for universal precautions and diaper changes (Table 1). Almost half of participants also used nonsterile gloves for all patients and 37.5% for extremely low birth weight (<1000 g) infants. While most sites (76.8%) stated that nonsterile gloves were not required for parents, 15.8% requested gloves also for parents. 58% of respondents felt there was not enough evidence for a practice change at this time and 53.3% felt further study was needed to assess the effect of nonsterile gloves and infection (Figures 2 and 3). Almost a third of respondents (n = 109) would be interested in participating in a randomized study to assess glove-based care. Major concerns with this approach included a possible reduction in hand hygiene compliance, environmental waste, and glove contamination (Figure 4). Conclusion There is variability in gloving practices across NICUs in North America, with equipoise and interest in a potential randomized study to further explore the hypothesis that nonsterile gloves prevent late-onset infections in neonates. 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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 topicNeonatal and Maternal InfectionsFrench-language works237,207