Involvement of healthcare staff in hospital hygiene during emergency hemodialysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare-associated infections are still a worrying health problem that complicates patient care and increases morbidity and mortality. The incidence of infections in hemodialysis patients is still high and they constitute the second cause of hospitalization and death in this category. AIMS: The study's objective was to evaluate nursing and medical staff's involvement in hospital hygiene. METHODS: This is an observational study that took place within the hemodialysis unit of a Moroccan university hospital from March 2021 to June 2021. A surface swabbing technique for bacteriological examination was also carried out. RESULTS: The study revealed some shortcomings regarding hand hygiene which was respected by the nurses in only 17.5% of sessions and in 42.2% by the doctors. Other shortcomings in asepsis measures, were also noted such as the non-change of gloves after skin preparation (1.03%) and before manual compression. The serological status of patients concerning HBV, HVC, and HIV was also not always known (31.1%). The bacteriological samples from the surfaces also showed colonization of the medical devices and the ultrasound scanner used for the ultrasound-guided introduction of the central catheters. The results of the study showed some deviations concerning the recommendations; however, they are comparable to other studies conducted internationally, especially in terms of hand hygiene. CONCLUSION: Our study results highlight some shortcomings adherence to hygiene measures like inconsistent disinfection of medical devices and dialysis stations, as well as insufficient hand hygiene practices among some staff members. However, we observed an improvement in practices following the implementation of awareness-raising sessions. To maintain improved hygiene practices and prevent infections, it is crucial to provide ongoing training for staff, ensure adequate resources, and regularly monitor compliance with hygiene standards.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".