MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387169330 · doi:10.1017/ash.2023.376

Risk factors for the transmission of <i>Clostridioides difficile</i> or methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> in acute care

2023· article· en· W4387169330 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xuetao Wang, Matthew Garrod, Tamara Duncombe, Eun-Sun Lee, Katy Short Joyce Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueAntimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClostridioidesOdds ratioInfection controlMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusRetrospective cohort studyEmergency medicineHygieneTransmission (telecommunications)Internal medicineStaphylococcus aureusIntensive care medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Some hospitals continue to struggle with nosocomial transmission of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) despite years of infection control efforts. We investigated the relationship between unit infrastructural–organizational risk factors and nosocomial transmission of CDI and MRSA. Methods: This retrospective observational study included 100 eligible acute-care inpatient units from 12 hospitals in British Columbia, Canada, from April 1, 2020, to September 16, 2021. The outcome variables included whether a unit was on the CDI or MRSA vulnerable unit list (ie, defined as having ≥5 CDI cases or ≥6 MRSA cases being attributed to the unit in the last 6 fiscal periods), the average CDI/MRSA rate, as well as the average CDI/MRSA standardized infection ratio (SIR). Independent variables included, but were not limited to, infection control factors (eg hand hygiene rate), infrastructural factors (eg, unit age, total beds on unit), and organizational factors (eg, hallway bed utilization, nursing overtime). Multivariable regression was performed to identify statistically significant risk factors using SAS, R Studio, and Stata software. Results: For CDI, older units were associated with higher odds of being on the CDI vulnerable unit list (aOR, 1.086; 95% CI, 1.024–1.175), higher CDI rate (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.012; 95% CI, 0.004–0.020), and higher CDI SIR (aRR, 0.011; 95% CI, 0.003–0.020). Larger unit size was associated with higher odds of being on the CDI vulnerable unit list (aOR, 1.210; 95% CI, 1.095–1.400) and higher CDI SIR (aRR, 0.013; 95% CI, 0.001–0.026). For MRSA, an increase in hand hygiene rate was associated with lower odds of being on the MRSA vulnerable unit list (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53–0.897), lower MRSA rate (aRR, −0.035; 95% CI, −0.063 to −0.008), and lower MRSA SIR (aRR, −0.039; 95% CI, −0.069 to −0.008). Higher MRSA bioburden was associated with higher odds of being on the MRSA vulnerable unit list (aOR, >999; 95% CI, >999 to >999), higher MRSA rate (aRR, 9.008; 95% CI, 5.586–12.429), and higher MRSA SIR (aRR, 4.964; 95% CI, 1.971–7.958). Additionally, higher MRSA rates were associated increased utilization of hallway beds (aRR, 0.680; 95% CI, 0.094–1.267), increased nursing overtime rate (aRR, 5.018; 95% CI, 1.210–8.826), and not having a clean supply room with the door consistently closed (aRR, −0.283; 95% CI, −0.536 to −0.03). Conclusions: Several infrastructural and organizational factors were associated with nosocomial transmissions of CDI and MRSA. Further research is needed to investigate the mechanisms by which these factors are associated. Disclosures: None

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare EpidemiologySame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207