Assessment of cleaning methods on bacterial burden of hospital privacy curtains: a pilot randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) are an important global issue, leading to poor patient outcomes. A potential route of transmission of HAIs is through contact with hospital privacy curtains. The aim of this study is to evaluate cleaning on reduction of curtain bacterial burden. In this pilot cluster randomized controlled trial we compared the bacterial burden between three groups of 24 curtains on a regional burn/plastic surgery ward. A control group was not cleaned. Two groups were cleaned at 3–4 day intervals with either disinfectant spray or wipe. The primary outcome was the difference in mean CFU/cm 2 between day 0 to day 21. The secondary outcome was the proportion of curtains contaminated with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). By day 21, the control group was statistically higher (2.2 CFU/cm 2 ) than spray (1.3 CFU/cm 2 ) or wipe (1.5 CFU/cm 2 ) ( p < 0.05). After each cleaning at 3–4 day intervals, the bacterial burden on the curtains reduced to near day 0 levels; however, the level increased again over the intervening 3–4 days. By day 21, 64% of control curtains were contaminated with MRSA compared to 10% (spray) and 5% (wipe) ( p < 0.05). This study show that curtains start clean and progressively become contaminated with bacteria. Regularly cleaning curtains with disinfectant spray or wipes reduces bacterial burden and MRSA contamination.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".