MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983731622

Infection Control Standards in Private Dental Practice - The Role of Accreditation.

2018· article· en· W2983731622 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gillian Jean, Alexander Holden, Marc Tennant, Estie Kruger

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationContext (archaeology)LegislationQuality assuranceBusinessSeriousnessControl (management)Quality (philosophy)Health carePrivate practiceSafety standardsPublic relationsMedicineService (business)Political scienceLawEngineeringFamily medicineManagementMarketingMedical education
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are established standards for the management of infection control in private dental practices, but there is currently no proactive legislation to oversee correct adherence to those standards. The Australian Health Service Safety and Quality Accreditation Scheme (Scheme) promotes a quality and safety management program that includes attention to the prevention of healthcare acquired infections, but adoption of the Scheme is not compulsory for all. A recent case brought before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal demonstrated the seriousness of breaches of infection control standards and the considerable costs of managing the consequences. This article discusses the role of quality and safety assurance programs in the context of private dental practice regulation; compares the different quality and safety assurance schemes operating in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom; and argues that the compulsory adoption of an appropriate scheme which focuses on infection control would be in the public interest.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.021
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207