Assessing personal protective equipment compliance in a polish healthcare setting during the COVID-19 pandemic – A pilot case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to identify failures in proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) usage in a healthcare hospital environment to enhance PPE compliance through proper donning and doffing procedures.Methods: We used naturalistic observation (shadowing) of PPE donning and doffing by healthcare medical staff in their hospital work setting to identify non-conformities to compliant donning and doffing of PPE.Results: We found an average of 1.84 non-conformances per healthcare worker across the donning procedures and 2.06 non-conformances in the doffing procedures per healthcare provider. Nurses experienced 1.94 average non-conformances in the donning procedures, while physicians average 1.75 non-conformances. Nurses experienced 2.29 average doffing nonconformances, while physicians averaged 1.85 average doffing non-conformances during the study. PPE compliance is critical to protect both healthcare workers and patients in the healthcare setting, as well as building a culture of safety.Research implications: Appropriate training and compliance should be performed to ensure appropriate PPE donning and doffing protocols are adhered to, so that it reduces the transmission of disease and infections. Future studies will explore the environmental, cultural and operational factors that contribute to PPE compliance in healthcare.Conclusions: This is the first study to quantify donning and doffing errors of personal protective compliance within the realm of environmental and cultural impacts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".