The Cost of Contact Precautions: A Systematic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methods: A formula was established with components including patient room entries by Healthcare Worker (HCW), proportion of entries by HCW categories, time taken to don and doff Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), price of PPE, and HCW employment cost. A literature review for the period 2000-2020 was conducted to estimate room entries per hour; we applied proportion of room entries reported in literature; a local study was used for estimating time taken to don and doff gown and gloves; the price of PPE was provided by Alberta Health Services; and employment cost was captured from public sources. Results: Results of the literature review suggest an average 4.35 entries per hour by HCW and most entries were made by nurses. The local study data suggested that on average it took 85 seconds in total for HCW to don and doff PPE. Using all the components of the formula, the total cost per hour per patient associated with additional PPE was estimated to be C$8.95 (US$6.82). Conclusion: A simple framework for estimating hourly costs of contact precautions was presented. Although the hourly cost was modest, the implications are significant when considering annual number of patient-hours of contact precautions.
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 | 0.017 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".