MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321267603 · doi:10.5864/d2022-024

The challenges of faulty autoclaves: An IPAC lapse investigation

2022· article· en· W4321267603 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kaitlyn Irving

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElder Abuse and Neglect
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of Niagara
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnicianAutoclaveMedicineMedical emergencyOperations managementEngineeringPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) lapse at a physician’s office resulted in 54 non-compliance issues identified. Eight high-risk items were all associated with reprocessing. Examination of the autoclave revealed numerous structural concerns as it was a discontinued model of autoclave that originated from a retired physician. Three biological indicators were used to verify effectiveness of the autoclave but all of which failed. In consultation with Public Health Ontario’s IPAC team, contract tracing was needed as there was a risk to patients. Without adequate sterilization logs, the timeframe of patient records needed was the date after the autoclave was serviced by a technician until the date of the initial investigation. Lessons learned from this investigation include the need to reach out to suppliers to confirm compatibility of biological indicators with older model autoclaves and the importance of reviewing technician reports to understand when the device was last effective. With an increase in physician’s retiring during the COVID-19 pandemic, this case study highlights how discontinued autoclaves may be re-circulated into practice. This could result in similar issues faced by other public health inspectors.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health ReviewSame topicElder Abuse and NeglectFrench-language works237,207