MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae admission screening practices in Canadian healthcare settings: A cross-sectional survey of respondents working in Canadian hospitals and long-term care facilities (2020)

2023· article· en· W4411637172 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infection Control · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyHealth careLong-term careMedicineEnvironmental healthFamily medicineNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE) infections are difficult to treat and are associated with high mortality. This study investigated admission screening practices for CPE risk factors within Canadian acute care inpatient hospitals (herein referred to as hospitals) and long-term care facilities (LTCF), and identified perceived barriers to screening, as reported by respondents working in these settings. Awareness of perceived barriers can inform improvements to current screening practices. Methods: An electronic, cross-sectional survey was distributed to a convenience sample consisting of members of the IPAC Canada surveillance and LTCF interest groups, and to the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program’s Carbapenemase-Producing Organisms Workgroup. Recipients with a role in infection prevention and control in a Canadian hospital or LTCF were asked to respond. Survey data were collected from September 7 to December 11, 2020. Descriptive analyses were used to compare the proportion of LTCF and hospital-based respondents who reported that their facility conducted admission screening for CPE risk factors, and to describe perceived barriers to screening. Results: There was a significant difference between respondents from LTCFs and hospitals as to whether screening was performed for CPE (p<0.001), with hospital-based respondents being more likely to report admission screening. Similarly, there was a statistically detectable difference between respondent facility size (based on number of beds) and whether screening was performed (p=0.039), with admission screening reported more frequently by respondents working in facilities with 250-499 beds. Similar barriers to admission screening were identified by LTCF and hospital-based respondents, with both reporting a lack of resources, staffing, and cost as perceived barriers in their facility. Additionally, LTCF-based respondents reported a lack of policies or processes to guide screening. Conclusions: Awareness of specific barriers to admission screening for CPE may help hospitals and LTCFs to improve surveillance practices for CPE colonization and infection to inform prompt implementation of IPAC measures that may limit transmission within healthcare settings.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.295 · 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