MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4384131298 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2832054/v1

Insights into the implementation of a whole genome sequencing report form (SRF) to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 within UK hospitals: a qualitative process evaluation using normalisation process theory

2023· preprint· en· W4384131298 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth Leiser, Julie McLeod, Fiona Mapp, Oliver Stirrup, James Blackstone, Christopher JR Illingwo, Gaia Nebbia, James Price, Luke B. Snell, Tranprit Saluja, Judith Breuer, Paul Flowers

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Rare Diseases
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilUniversité de GenèveTrinity College DublinCardiff UniversityUniversity of GlasgowLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineUniversity of CambridgeNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUK Research and InnovationNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Process (computing)Thematic analysisQualitative researchHealth careProcess managementMedicineComputer scienceEngineeringBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Here we report on a process evaluation conducted as part of a large multisite non-randomised trial of the effectiveness of a whole genome sequence report form (SRF) to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 through changing infection prevention and control (IPC) behaviours during the COVID − 19 pandemic. We detail how the SRF was implemented across a heterogeneous purposive sub-sample of hospital trial sites (n = 5/14). Methods We conducted in-depth interviews from diverse professional staff (N = 39). Inductive thematic analysis initially explored participants’ accounts of implementing the SRF. The resulting data driven themes, concerning the way the SRF was used within sites, were then coded in relation to the key tenets of normalisation process theory (NPT). Results Factors that enabled the implementation of the SRF included: elements of the context such as health care professional passion; the existence of whole genome sequencing (WGS) infrastructure; effective communication channels, the creation of new connections across professionals and teams; the integration of SRF-led discussions within pre-existing meetings and the ability of a site to achieve a rapid turnaround time. In contrast, we found factors that constrained the use of the SRF included elements of the context such as the impact of the Alpha-variant overwhelming hospitals. In turn, dealing with COVID-19 breached the limited capacity of infection prevention and control (IPC) to respond to the SRF and ensure its routinisation. Conclusion We show preliminary support for the SRF being an acceptable, useable and potentially scalable way of enhancing existing IPC activities. However, the context of both the trial and the alpha wave of COVID-19 limit these insights. Clinical trial number https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN50212645, Registration date 20/05/2020

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)0.176
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.174
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1760.174
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.368 · 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.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicGenomics and Rare Diseases→French-language works237,207→