MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102400155 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242212

Development and validation of a time and motion guide to assess the costs of prevention and control interventions for nosocomial infections: A Delphi method among experts

2020· article· en· W3102400155 on OpenAlexafffund
Éric Tchouaket Nguemeleu, Sandra Boivin, Stéphanie Robins, Drissa Sia, Kelley Kilpatrick, Sylvain Brousseau, Bruno Dubreuil, Catherine Larouche, Natasha Parisien

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanMcGill UniversityCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRéseau de recherche portant sur les interventions en sciences infirmières du Québec
KeywordsDelphi methodHygieneSanitationInfection controlContent validityDelphiPsychological interventionHealth careMedicineBest practicePersonal protective equipmentNursingComputer sciencePsychometricsIntensive care medicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial infections place a heavy burden on patients and healthcare providers and impact health care institutions financially. Reducing nosocomial infections requires an integrated program of prevention and control using key clinical best care practices. No instrument currently exists that measures these practices in terms of personnel time and material costs. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an instrument that would measure nosocomial infection control and prevention best care practice costs, including estimates of human and material resources. METHODS: An evaluation of the literature identified four practices essential for the control of pathogens: hand hygiene, hygiene and sanitation, screening and additional precaution. To reflect time, materials and products used in these practices, our team developed a time and motion guide. Iterations of the guide were assessed in a Delphi technique; content validity was established using the content validity index and reliability was assessed using Kruskall Wallis one-way ANOVA of rank test. RESULTS: Two rounds of Delphi review were required; 88% of invited experts completed the assessment. The final version of the guide contains eight dimensions: Identification [83 items]; Personnel [5 items]; Additional Precautions [1 item]; Hand Hygiene [2 items]; Personal Protective Equipment [14 items]; Screening [4 items]; Cleaning and Disinfection of Patient Care Equipment [33 items]; and Hygiene and Sanitation [24 items]. The content validity index obtained for all dimensions was acceptable (> 80%). Experts statistically agreed on six of the eight dimensions. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This study developed and validated a new instrument based on expert opinion, the time and motion guide, for the systematic assessment of costs relating to the human and material resources used in nosocomial infection prevention and control. This guide will prove useful to measure the intensity of the application of prevention and control measures taken before, during and after outbreak periods or during pandemics such as COVID-19.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207