MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095882189 · doi:10.1017/ice.2020.1045

Survey for “iCarePATH”: Improving Caregivers’ Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Hand Washing

2020· article· en· W3095882189 on OpenAlexaff
Stephanie Zahradnik, James Okeny-Owere, Anne Tsampalieros, Richard Webster, Pat Bedard, Gillian Seidman, Nisha Thampi

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAuditHygieneFamily medicineFocus groupPerceptionNursingEmergency medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hand hygiene (HH) is the most effective means of preventing healthcare-associated infections (HAI). HH improvement strategies primarily focus on healthcare staff, often overlooking the significant contribution of caregivers to HAI risk. We sought to understand caregivers’ HH knowledge and practices to identify improvement opportunities. Methods: A self-administered survey was developed and distributed to families from June to August 2019; open-ended questions and Likert scales assessed caregivers’ perceptions and practices regarding HH at home and in hospital. HH compliance audits of caregivers entering and exiting inpatient rooms were performed in the same time period. Results: Among 81 caregivers surveyed, median patient age was 4.0 (IQR, 0.9–13.0) years. This was the first admission for 42 patients (53.8%). During this admission, 22 (27.2%) patients had been admitted for ≤1 day and 45 (55.6%) for >3 days. Caregivers reported good knowledge of HH practice, with strongly positive responses to knowledge of HH moments (94%) and proper technique (96%). Caregivers recognized that HH is required of hospital visitors (96%) to protect others (99%) and prevent illness in hospital (93%). Responses were less consistent for performing HH before entering a hospital room (83%), after exiting the room (70%), or after coughing or sneezing (65%). The attitudes of caregivers of children above 2 years were equivocal regarding expectations of their child to wash hands upon entering (40%), or exiting (41%) the hospital room. Multivariable modeling identified higher self-reported HH compliance in caregivers during first admission to hospital, compared to subsequent admissions (OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.11–9.65). Reported barriers to HH included hand irritation (27.2%) and perceived HH frequency (18.5%). At the time of survey completion, 62 caregivers (77%) reported not having received HH information during their child’s admission from a healthcare provider or volunteer. Information was most commonly gained from posters (75%) and information in the room (31%). Most caregivers (58.0%) reported that they would prefer to receive HH information in the first 24 hours of admission. Among 200 audits, overall caregiver compliance with HH was 9%; HH before entering the room was 7.2% compared to 11.2% after exiting ( P = .33). Conclusions: Reported caregiver knowledge of HH was not reflected in audited practice. Fewer than 1 in 4 had received HH information from healthcare staff. HH education in the hospital environment within the first day of admission provides an opportunity for caregivers to improve compliance as partners in HAI prevention and safer pediatric care. Funding: None Disclosures: None

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection Control and Hospital EpidemiologySame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207