Understanding resident, family, and caregiver experiences to inform the development of a multimodal hand hygiene program in long-term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization Guidelines on Hand Hygiene in Health Care provide an evidence-based framework to improve hand hygiene compliance through a multimodal approach which includes quality improvement, patient/resident engagement, and a commitment to safety. Long-term care (LTC) is considered both a resident’s home and a healthcare environment where healthcare workers provide professional care while balancing and honouring a homelike ambience. By engaging residents and their families (i.e., direct family members, friends, or caregivers) in four LTC homes through surveys and interviews, this quality improvement project aimed to understand the resident and family experience with hand hygiene measures in LTC, to learn how to promote both safety and comfort through their experiences, and to include what matters to them in the pursuit of this balance when developing hand hygiene programs. Using a mixed-methods approach, the findings suggest that residents and families support increased accessibility to hand hygiene infrastructure, including prioritizing access to soap and water; adding alcohol-based hand rub to resident rooms when appropriate; modelling good hand hygiene practices; and continuing hand hygiene reminders at entrances. More than 79% of residents and 85% of families felt that hand hygiene would help protect them or their loved one from getting sick. The opinions shared by residents and families were well-received, strengthened relationships between Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) and facility staff, and provided a common understanding that improvements in hand hygiene accessibility are welcomed.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".