MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3168080055 · doi:10.1186/s13756-021-01000-y

A pre-pandemic COVID-19 assessment of the costs of prevention and control interventions for healthcare associated infections in medical and surgical wards in Québec

2021· article· en· W3168080055 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Éric Tchouaket Nguemeleu, Stéphanie Robins, Sandra Boivin, Drissa Sia, Kelley Kilpatrick, Bruno Dubreuil, Catherine Larouche, Natasha Parisien, Josiane Létourneau

Bibliographic record

VenueAntimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecCentre Integre de Sante et de Services Sociaux de LavalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanMcGill UniversityCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHygieneInfection controlMedicineHealth careSanitationActivity-based costingPsychological interventionPersonal protective equipmentPandemicMedical emergencyIsolation (microbiology)Public healthEnvironmental healthEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)NursingBusinessDiseaseInternal medicinePathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Marketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) present a major public health problem that significantly affects patients, health care providers and the entire healthcare system. Infection prevention and control programs limit HCAIs and are an indispensable component of patient and healthcare worker safety. The clinical best practices (CBPs) of handwashing, screening, hygiene and sanitation of surfaces and equipment, and basic and additional precautions (e.g., isolation, and donning and removing personal protective equipment) are keystones of infection prevention and control (IPC). There is a lack of rigorous IPC economic evaluations demonstrating the cost-benefit of IPC programs in general, and a lack of assessment of the value of investing in CBPs more specifically. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess overall costs associated with each of the four CBPs. METHODS: Across two Quebec hospitals, 48 healthcare workers were observed for two hours each shift, for two consecutive weeks. A modified time-driven activity-based costing framework method was used to capture all human resources (time) and materials (e.g. masks, cloths, disinfectants) required for each clinical best practice. Using a hospital perspective with a time horizon of one year, median costs per CBP per hour, as well as the cost per action, were calculated and reported in 2018 Canadian dollars ($). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1831 actions were recorded. The median cost of hand hygiene (N = 867) was 20 cents per action. For cleaning and disinfection of surfaces (N = 102), the cost was 21 cents per action, while cleaning of small equipment (N = 85) was 25 cents per action. Additional precautions median cost was $4.1 per action. The donning or removing or personal protective equipment (N = 720) cost was 76 cents per action. Finally, the total median costs for the five categories of clinical best practiced assessed were 27 cents per action. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of clinical best practices were low, from 20 cents to $4.1 per action. This study provides evidence based arguments with which to support the allocation of resources to infection prevention and control practices that directly affect the safety of patients, healthcare workers and the public. Further research of costing clinical best care practices is warranted.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntimicrobial Resistance and Infection ControlSame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207