MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999958825 · doi:10.36584/cjic.2019.014

Assessment of the infection prevention and control learning needs of Ottawa community-based healthcare providers

2019· article· en· W2999958825 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infection Control · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityOttawa Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBest practiceHealth careFamily medicinePublic healthLikert scaleNursingPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Under the Health Protection and Promotion Act and Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) Complaint Protocol, Ontario public health units are mandated to respond to IPAC complaints about community-based clinical offices. From 2015 to 2018, Ottawa Public Health noted a seven-fold increase in IPAC complaints involving medical and dental settings. In response, we sought to assess the IPAC learning needs of our community-based healthcare providers. Specifically, our objectives were to assess: 1) clinical practice characteristics, 2) current IPAC practices, 3) IPAC knowledge, 4) barriers/facilitators to adherence to IPAC best practices, and 5) preferred IPAC professional development activities. Methods: An anonymous online survey targeting Ottawa community-based healthcare providers was disseminated through multiple methods including through Ottawa Public Health’s (OPH) subscription-based e-bulletin to physicians. The short survey questionnaire included Likert-scale, multiple choice, and open-ended questions. Data collection began in August 2018; a descriptive analysis was conducted using data extracted on January 19, 2019. Results: Our findings suggest that medical respondents may not be as aware of IPAC practices in their clinic as dental respondents were. Familiarity with IPAC best practice documents was also higher among dental respondents, as compared to medical respondents. IPAC knowledge-testing questions revealed that more medical than dental respondents knew the appropriate use of multi-dose vials, and that few medical respondents knew the IPAC best practices for point-of-care glucose monitoring equipment. Respondents recognized the importance of adhering to IPAC best practices to prevent healthcare-associated infections; however, lack of evidence and cost were selfreported barriers to adherence to IPAC best practices. Over half of all medical and dental respondents surveyed were interested in a voluntary audit of their IPAC practices to help meet their IPAC professional development needs. Conclusions: Findings from this needs assessment helped describe current IPAC practices and knowledge, identify barriers and facilitators to adherence to IPAC best practices, and understand the learning preferences of Ottawa community-based healthcare providers. This information will be instrumental in planning future IPAC capacity-building activities and tailoring these activities to specific professional groups in Ottawa and potentially beyond.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.285 · 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