MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405332999 · doi:10.1017/ice.2024.201

Letter to the editor: enhancing healthcare-associated infection reporting in Canada

2024· letter· en· W4405332999 on OpenAlexaffabout
Virginie Boulanger, Anne Bialachowski, Anne MacLaurin, Caroline Quach

Bibliographic record

VenueInfection Control and Hospital Epidemiology · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient Satisfaction in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCARE CanadaJoseph Brant HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth careFamily medicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To the Editor, Healthcare-associated infections (HAI) are the most frequently reported adverse event in healthcare worldwide.1 In Ontario and Quebec, Canada, C. difficile (CDI) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) HAI surveillance are mandatory for acute care hospitals.2,3 Traditional active surveillance by infection prevention and control (IPC) teams is considered the "gold-standard" but is time-consuming and labor-intensive.3 However, passive surveillance using administrative data would be a cost-effective alternative as it relies on routinely collected and consistently defined data.4 The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) implemented HAI surveillance through its Discharge Abstract Database (DAD), an administrative database that contains a codified summary of a patients' stay in hospital, which is coded by the hospital clinical coding team (CCT) using the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes, in accordance with CIHI standards.5 However, it has been demonstrated that its accuracy in Canada is limited in comparison with active surveillance data.6 Since 2016, the CCT at St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton (SJHH), Ontario, has used IPC data to report CDI and MRSA infections to CIHI.To do so, IPC sent a monthly HAI list to the CCT, ensuring alignment and provided training on the differences and definitions used for these infections.This practice deviates from CIHI standards, which mandate that coders only use chart documentation from physicians, midwives, or nurse practitioners.In 2017, SJHH transitioned to an electronic medical record (EMR), allowing IPC team to document infections directly, eliminating the need for monthly lists.A report was developed to support monthly and year-end reconciliation, enhancing data accuracy.The collaborative approach was readily adopted, resolving data discrepancies.As a quality assessment project approved by the Director of professional Services, we conducted a study to assess the validity of

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0230.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInfection Control and Hospital EpidemiologySame topicPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207