Intervention to reduce unnecessary urinary catheter use in a large academic health science centre: A one‐group, pretest, posttest study with a theory‐based process evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate an intervention to reduce unnecessary urinary catheter use and prevent catheter-associated urinary-tract infections (CAUTI) in hospitalized patients across an academic health science centre. METHODS: We conducted a one-group, pretest, posttest study with a theory-based process evaluation. Phase 1 consisted of a pre/postintervention to test the impact of a CAUTI protocol. Audits on four units were conducted, and data were analysed descriptively. Phase 2 consisted of a theory-based process evaluation to understand the barriers/enablers to the implementation. Semistructured interviews were conducted and then analysed using a systematic approach. RESULTS: In Phase 1, all inpatients with urinary catheters admitted to the units (N = 4) during the study period (N = 99, pre) and (N = 99, post) were included. CAUTI prevalence rate was 18.2% pre versus 14.1% post (p = .563). In Phase 2, participants (N = 18) who worked on the units were interviewed, and a total of 13 barriers and 19 enablers were found.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".